[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AD4A676.3010603@openvz.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:10:30 +0400
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
CC: Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oren Laadan <orenl@...columbia.edu>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mikew@...gle.com, mingo@...e.hu, hpa@...or.com,
Nathan Lynch <nathanl@...tin.ibm.com>, arnd@...db.de,
peterz@...radead.org, Louis.Rilling@...labs.com, roland@...hat.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, randy.dunlap@...cle.com,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
sukadev@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][v8][PATCH 3/10]: Make pid_max a pid_ns property
> This patch isn't a core part of the clone_with_pid functionality,
> just something Eric has asked for. So I don't object to dropping
> it. But I disagree with Alexey's claim that this isn't a namespace
> property. It should be.
OK
>> frankly I don't see the reason for doing so. Why should we?
>> Especially taking into account, that we essentially cannot
>> change thin in the namespace level 3 and deeper?
>
> What do you mean by that? With this patchset we're not, it's
> true, but we trivially can - even now, userspace can simply not
> give the container CAP_SYS_ADMIN or write access to the sysctl
> so they can't do any more CLONE_NEWPIDS or change the sysctl.
It's a misprint - I meant "level 2 and deeper". Sysctl is
only pointing at the init_pid_ns variable.
> -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