Re: Namespaces exhausted CLONE_XXX bits problem

[Pavel Emelyanov <xemul-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>]

Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Cedric Le Goater (clg-NmTC/0ZBporQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org):
>> to be more precise :
>>
>> 	long sys_clone_something(struct clone_something_args args) 
>>
>> and 
>>
>> 	long sys_unshare_something(struct unshare_something_args args) 
>>
>> The arg passing will be slower bc of the copy_from_user() but we will 
>> still have the sys_clone syscall for the fast path.
>>
>> C.
> 
> I'm fine with the direction you're going, but just as one more option,
> we could follow more of the selinux/lsm approach of first requesting
> clone/unshare options, then doing the actual clone/unshare.  So
> something like
> 
> 	sys_clone_request(extended_64bit_clone_flags)

What if we someday hit the 64-bit limit? :)

> 	sys_clone(usual args)
> 
> or
> 
> 	echo pid,mqueue,user,ipc,uts,net > /proc/self/clone_unshare
> 	clone()

Well, this is how sys_indirect() was intended to work. Nobody
liked it, so I'm afraid this will also not be accepted.

> -serge
> 

Thanks,
Pavel