Re: [RFC 0/2] ns: introduce binfmt_misc namespace

[Dmitry Safonov <dima@arista.com>]

Hi Laurent, thanks for Cc,

On Mon, 2018-10-01 at 09:13 +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Le 01/10/2018 à 06:45, Andy Lutomirski a écrit :
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 4:47 PM Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
> > wrote:
> > > 
> > > This series introduces a new namespace for binfmt_misc.
> > > 
> > 
> > This seems conceptually quite reasonable, but I'm wondering if the
> > number of namespace types is getting out of hand given the current
> > API.  Should we be considering whether we need a new set of
> > namespace
> > creation APIs that scale better to larger numbers of namespace
> > types?
> > 
> 
> Yes, we need something to increase the maximum number of namespace
> types
> because this is the last bit in the clone() flags and the time
> namespace
> has already preempted it.

Yeah, there is this last CLONE_* flag..
I tried to use that 0x1000 flag for something like CLONE_EXTENDED with
all parameters on the stack, but not sure that's reasonable and maybe
someone will suggest a better solution.
All those different clone() ABI (how many parameters to supply and in
which order do not help much).

-- 
Thanks,
             Dmitry