Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace

Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> how does this interact with the unshare() syscall ?

it complements unshare(). The purpose of this syscall is to unshare a
namespace after the process has been flushed.

> can the unshare syscall be rigged up such that you have the same effect?

We need a clean context with no reference in other namespaces to make
unshare safe. It seemed easier to add an improved execve() with an extra
flag than to modify unshare() to make it flush the old exec.

Now, that does not make unshare() useless. It's perfectly acceptable for
uts namespace. But IMO, it's dangerous for ipc namespace and user namespace
which are more complex because they have references all over the place :
network with socket, mm for shmem, files for accounting.

thanks,

C.

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace
    • From: Cedric Le Goater <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH]resend: unaligned access in irda protocol stack
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/2] swsusp: clean up browsing of pfns
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH -mm 0/7] execns syscall and user namespace
• 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]