From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Colin Walters Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2) Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 11:27:09 -0400 Message-ID: <1333726029.4077.42.camel@lenny> References: <20120401125741.GA7484@p183.telecom.by> <4F78D0BA.9040709@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, drepper@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Dobriyan Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 12:54 +0300, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > But I find it little hypocritical that kernel developers add CONFIG_PROC_FS, > fix compilation problems associated with it, do not mount proc by default, > do not mark it unmountable somehow and > then say procless setups aren't worth it. > > I haven't seen personally procless environments > but several people mentioned them including on this very list. Now that the kernel has CLONE_NEWNS, it's possible to mount proc "privately" just for a specific process tree. It meshes nicely with CLONE_NEWPID. Previously if you mounted proc in a chroot, it cluttered the mount list and leaked information about outside the root. With modern clone/unshare, that's no longer a concern, so there's much less reason to use "bare" chroots.