[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a86yseej.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 23:33:24 -0500
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
agruenba@...hat.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, oleg@...hat.com, paul@...l-moore.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, avagin@...nvz.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
mtk.manpages@...il.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
luto@...capital.net, gorcunov@...nvz.org, mingo@...nel.org,
keescook@...omium.org, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] userns,pidns: Verify the userns for new pid namespaces
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com> writes:
> Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@...ssion.com):
>>
>> It is pointless and confusing to allow a pid namespace hierarchy and
>> the user namespace hierarchy to get out of sync. The owner of a child
>> pid namespace should be the owner of the parent pid namespace or
>> a descendant of the owner of the parent pid namespace.
>>
>> Otherwise it is possible to construct scenarios where it is legal to
>> do something in a parent pid namespace but in a child pid namespace.
>
> Hi,
>
> did you mean 'but not in a child...' above?
Actually I believe I meant:
>> Otherwise it is possible to construct scenarios where it is not legal
>> to do something in a parent pid namespace but it is legal a child pid
>> namespace.
I definitely need to fix that wording thank you.
Eric
Powered by blists - more mailing lists