From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cedric Le Goater Subject: Re: namespaces compatibility list Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:49:03 +0100 Message-ID: <4731C24F.1040408@fr.ibm.com> References: <47304729.8000309@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47304729.8000309-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: containers-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Pavel Emelyanov Cc: Linux Containers , "Eric W. Biederman" List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org There's also a Documentation/unshare.txt. Should we update it also ? > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/namespaces/compatibility-list.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ > + Namespaces compatibility list > + > +This document contains the information about the problems user > +may have when creating tasks living in different namespaces. > + > +Here's the summary. This matrix shows the known problems, that > +occur when tasks share some namespace (the columns) while living > +in different other namespaces (the raws): s/raws/rows/ > + > + UTS IPC VFS PID User Net > +UTS > +IPC 1 > +VFS > +PID 1 1 > +User 2 > +Net This is dense but I can't think of a better representation. > +1. Both the IPC and the PID namespaces provide IDs to address > + object inside the kernel. E.g. semaphore with ipcid or > + process group with pid. > + > + In both cases, tasks shouldn't try telling this id to some s/telling/exposing/ ? > + other task living in different namespace vid shared filesystem .. in a different namespace via a shared filesystem > + or IPC shmem/message. The fact is that this ID is only valid > + within the namespace it was obtained in and may refer to some > + other object in another namespace. > + > +2. Intentionnaly, two equal user ids in different user namespaces > + should not be equal from the VFS point of view. In other > + words, user 10 in one user namespace shouldn't have the same > + access permissions to files, beloging to user 10 in another > + namespace. But currently this is not so. > > Thanks Pavel, C.