From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: namespaces compatibility list Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:36:26 -0700 Message-ID: References: <47304729.8000309@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <47304729.8000309-GEFAQzZX7r8dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> (Pavel Emelyanov's message of "Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:51:21 +0300") 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 , Cedric Le Goater List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Pavel Emelyanov writes: > +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. I don't know where this is going to land for a final call. But if the pid namespace has a chance of landing under CONFIG_BROKEN for the final stable release. We seriously want to consider the user namespace for the same treatment. We all seem to agree that it is incomplete. Eric