[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e924b563-44c6-d678-a6cc-1181f4b820d5@metux.net>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:21:12 +0100
From: Enrico Weigelt <lkml@...ux.net>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@...ma-star.at>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: plan9 semantics on Linux - mount namespaces
On 14.02.2018 16:17, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> From taking a *very* quick look into busybox source, I suspect this should fix
> it:
>
> diff --git a/util-linux/unshare.c b/util-linux/unshare.c
> index 875e3f86e304..3f59cf4d27c2 100644
> --- a/util-linux/unshare.c
> +++ b/util-linux/unshare.c
> @@ -350,9 +350,9 @@ int unshare_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char **argv)
> * in that user namespace.
> */
> xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_SETGROUPS, "deny");
> - sprintf(uidmap_buf, "%u 0 1", (unsigned)reuid);
> + sprintf(uidmap_buf, "0 %u 1", (unsigned)reuid);
> xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_UIDMAP, uidmap_buf);
> - sprintf(uidmap_buf, "%u 0 1", (unsigned)regid);
> + sprintf(uidmap_buf, "0 %u 1", (unsigned)regid);
> xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_GIDMAP, uidmap_buf);
> } else
> if (setgrp_str) {
>
hmm, now it works, but only when strace'ing it.
that's really strange.
But still I wonder whether user_ns really solves my problem, as I don't
want to create sandboxed users, but only private namespaces just like
on Plan9.
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Powered by blists - more mailing lists