Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.

The unshare() syscall is in fact a clone() syscall minus one
CLONE_* flag that is normally implied: CLONE_TASK_STRUCT.
(conceptually -- it has no name because it is always implied)

We already have one flag with inverted action: CLONE_NEWNS.
Adding another such flag (for the task struct) makes sense.
The new system call is thus not needed at all.

Suggested names: CLONE_NO_TASK, CLONE_SAMETASK, CLONE_SHARETASK
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.
    • From: [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman)

• Prev by Date: Re: Why doesn't MGEODE_LX enable X86_TSC?
• Next by Date: Re: Who uses the 'nodev' flag in /proc/filesystems ???
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] unshare: Cleanup up the sys_unshare interface before we are committed.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]