[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1333726029.4077.42.camel@lenny>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:27:09 -0400
From: Colin Walters <walters@...bum.org>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
drepper@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:54 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> But I find it little hypocritical that kernel developers add CONFIG_PROC_FS,
> fix compilation problems associated with it, do not mount proc by default,
> do not mark it unmountable somehow and
> then say procless setups aren't worth it.
>
> I haven't seen personally procless environments
> but several people mentioned them including on this very list.
Now that the kernel has CLONE_NEWNS, it's possible to mount proc
"privately" just for a specific process tree. It meshes nicely with
CLONE_NEWPID. Previously if you mounted proc in a chroot, it cluttered
the mount list and leaked information about outside the root.
With modern clone/unshare, that's no longer a concern, so there's
much less reason to use "bare" chroots.
--
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