Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Mar 2007 16:57:55 -0500 | From | "Serge E. Hallyn" <> | Subject | Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem |
| |
Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@in.ibm.com): > On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:35:37AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > > +static int ns_create(struct container_subsys *ss, struct container *cont) > > > +{ > > > + struct nscont *ns; > > > + > > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > > > + return -EPERM; > > > > Does this check break existing namespace semantics in a subtle way? > > It now requires that unshare() of namespaces by any task requires > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities. > > I should clarify that I am referring to unshare thr' clone here (and not > thr' sys_unshare)
That is still not true, see kernel/utsname:copy_utsname().
Now you might have run a userspace testcase in a kernel with CONFIG_UTS_NS=n, which at the moment erroneously returns 0 rather than -EINVAL when you clone(CLONE_NEWUTS). But you didn't get a new uts namespace, you were just lied to :)
-serge - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |