From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: JANAK DESAI <janak@us.ibm.com>,
viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, chrisw@osdl.org, dwmw2@infradead.org,
serue@us.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, linuxram@us.ibm.com,
jmorris@namei.org, sds@tycho.nsa.gov, akpm@osdl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:00:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051216170021.GA12495@mail.shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m1wti56wgw.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Like clone(), unshare() will have to change from year to year, as new
> > flags are added. It would be good if the default behaviour of 0 bits
> > to unshare() also did the right thing, so that programs compiled in
> > 2006 still function as expected in 2010. Hmm, this
> > forward-compatibility does not look pretty.
>
> Why all it requires is that whenever someone updates clone they update
> unshare. Given the tiniest bit of refactoring we should be
> able to share all of the interesting code paths.
That only works if unshare() should always mean "unshare everything
except specified things", including things that we currently don't
unshare.
I guess that is probably fine. Anything that would break
unshare()-using programs in future if it unshared by default, would be
likely to break clone()-using programs too. Is that right? Any
counterexamples?
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-16 17:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-13 22:54 [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call: system call handler function JANAK DESAI
2005-12-15 19:52 ` Eric W. Biederman
2005-12-15 20:38 ` JANAK DESAI
2005-12-15 21:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2005-12-15 21:32 ` Jamie Lokier
2005-12-15 22:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
2005-12-16 4:36 ` JANAK DESAI
2005-12-16 4:32 ` JANAK DESAI
2005-12-16 10:50 ` Jamie Lokier
2005-12-16 12:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2005-12-16 17:00 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2005-12-17 2:23 ` Eric W. Biederman
2005-12-16 14:32 ` Serge E. Hallyn
2005-12-16 12:39 ` Eric W. Biederman
2005-12-15 21:28 ` Jamie Lokier
2005-12-16 4:35 ` JANAK DESAI
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-12-13 13:42 [PATCH -mm 1/9] unshare system call : " JANAK DESAI
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051216170021.GA12495@mail.shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=chrisw@osdl.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=janak@us.ibm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxram@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sds@tycho.nsa.gov \
--cc=serue@us.ibm.com \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox