From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oren Laadan Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/30] cr: deal with nsproxy Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:03:47 -0400 Message-ID: <49E79D33.4010909@cs.columbia.edu> References: <20090410023809.GT27788@x200.localdomain> <20090416205503.GA28928@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090416205503.GA28928-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@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: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: xemul-bzQdu9zFT3WakBO8gow8eQ@public.gmane.org, containers-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, mingo-X9Un+BFzKDI@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dave-23VcF4HTsmIX0ybBhKVfKdBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org, hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org, akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, torvalds-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org, Alexey Dobriyan List-Id: containers.vger.kernel.org Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org): >> To save nsproxy, or to not save nsproxy? >> >> Don't think much, save it. >> >> I argue that nsproxy should be removed totally, if someone thinks otherwise. ;-) > > You've got Oren starting to agree with you too. I personally don't > much care in principle, and your code looks very nice. Heh ... as a matter of fact I always agreed with him about that. (and the irc logs can tell the story :) In fact, we have much more in agreement than none. That's what I have been arguing ! Now it's time to settle the disagreements... Oren. > > The way you do this and the uts patch, though, you (of course) bypass > the CAP_SYS_ADMIN check in copy_namespaces(). Which is fine for your > patchset, but a problem if we were to base a compromise patchset on > your patchset. > > It of course also enforces the 'leakage' checks, which again is > subject to our whole-container c/r discussion. > > But again, the code is nice, and I see no problems in it. > > -serge >