lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 19/30] cr: deal with nsproxy


Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@gmail.com):
>> To save nsproxy, or to not save nsproxy?
>>
>> Don't think much, save it.
>>
>> I argue that nsproxy should be removed totally, if someone thinks otherwise. ;-)
>
> You've got Oren starting to agree with you too. I personally don't
> much care in principle, and your code looks very nice.

Heh ... as a matter of fact I always agreed with him about that.
(and the irc logs can tell the story :)

In fact, we have much more in agreement than none. That's what
I have been arguing ! Now it's time to settle the disagreements...

Oren.

>
> The way you do this and the uts patch, though, you (of course) bypass
> the CAP_SYS_ADMIN check in copy_namespaces(). Which is fine for your
> patchset, but a problem if we were to base a compromise patchset on
> your patchset.
>
> It of course also enforces the 'leakage' checks, which again is
> subject to our whole-container c/r discussion.
>
> But again, the code is nice, and I see no problems in it.
>
> -serge
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-16 23:11    [W:0.119 / U:0.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site