Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Like clone(), unshare() will have to change from year to year, as new
> > flags are added. It would be good if the default behaviour of 0 bits
> > to unshare() also did the right thing, so that programs compiled in
> > 2006 still function as expected in 2010. Hmm, this
> > forward-compatibility does not look pretty.
>
> Why all it requires is that whenever someone updates clone they update
> unshare. Given the tiniest bit of refactoring we should be
> able to share all of the interesting code paths.
That only works if unshare() should always mean "unshare everything
except specified things", including things that we currently don't
unshare.
I guess that is probably fine. Anything that would break
unshare()-using programs in future if it unshared by default, would be
likely to break clone()-using programs too. Is that right? Any
counterexamples?
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
