[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070326215755.GC10492@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:57:55 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>
Cc: menage@...gle.com, containers@...ts.osdl.org, pj@....com,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, sekharan@...ibm.com,
ckrm-tech@...ts.sourceforge.net, rohitseth@...gle.com,
winget@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xemul@...ru
Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem
Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@...ibm.com):
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:35:37AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > +static int ns_create(struct container_subsys *ss, struct container *cont)
> > > +{
> > > + struct nscont *ns;
> > > +
> > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > > + return -EPERM;
> >
> > Does this check break existing namespace semantics in a subtle way?
> > It now requires that unshare() of namespaces by any task requires
> > CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.
>
> I should clarify that I am referring to unshare thr' clone here (and not
> thr' sys_unshare)
That is still not true, see kernel/utsname:copy_utsname().
Now you might have run a userspace testcase in a kernel with
CONFIG_UTS_NS=n, which at the moment erroneously returns 0 rather than
-EINVAL when you clone(CLONE_NEWUTS). But you didn't get a new uts
namespace, you were just lied to :)
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists