[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1k5aepmne.fsf@frodo.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:17:09 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] user namespaces: require cap_set{ug}id for CLONE_NEWUSER
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com> writes:
>> Personally the user namespace only becomes interesting when we
>> start to be able to move in the other direction and remove the
>> set of capabilities requires to create it.
>>
>> Eric
>
> Agreed. Now the thing is I don't think we need full userns
> support to get there. We just need the targeted capabilities
> and the basic dummy fs support - that is, init_user_ns owns
> all vfsmounts, and anyone not in init_user_ns only gets
> user other access to files under those mounts.
Right.
> Of course complete support for targeted caps will in itself
> be a huge effort :)
>
> So my roadmap is: next address the per-user keyring, then
> the targeted caps.
Sounds good.
I expect this means we will pass through a period where the user
namespace is less useful than it is today. But as it will be on
a much firmer foundation that is fine.
Eric
--
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