From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [CFT][PATCH 00/10] Making new mounts of proc and sysfs as safe as bind mounts (take 2) Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 15:41:45 -0500 Message-ID: <87d21s4a5y.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> References: <87pp63jcca.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87siaxuvik.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <87wq004im1.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Andy Lutomirski's message of "Fri, 22 May 2015 11:59:03 -0700") 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: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Seth Forshee , Linux API , Linux Containers , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kenton Varda , Michael Kerrisk-manpages , Richard Weinberger , Linux FS Devel , Tejun Heo List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Andy Lutomirski writes: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >> I had hoped to get some Tested-By's on that patch series. > > Sorry, I've been totally swamped. > > I suspect that Sandstorm is okay, but I haven't had a chance to test > it for real. Sandstorm makes only limited use of proc and sysfs in > containers, but I'll see if I can test it for real this weekend. Thanks. Eric