From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753960Ab3H0V5P (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:57:15 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:48648 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752381Ab3H0V5N (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:57:13 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Linux Containers , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Linux FS Devel , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" References: <878uzmhkqg.fsf@xmission.com> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:57:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Andy Lutomirski's message of "Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:47:07 -0700") Message-ID: <87a9k2g5la.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18GNZngfEeHFrb16oEMDib+7NI7BgRUgH0= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.154.105 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 1.5 TR_Symld_Words too many words that have symbols inside * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0027] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Andy Lutomirski X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 1/2] userns: Better restrictions on when proc and sysfs can be mounted X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andy Lutomirski writes: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >> >> Rely on the fact that another flavor of the filesystem is already >> mounted and do not rely on state in the user namespace. > > Possibly dumb question: does this check whether the pre-existing mount > has hidepid set? Not currently. It may be worth doing something with respect to hidepid. I forget what hidepid tries to do, and I need to dash. But feel free to cook up a follow on patch. My goal is simply to reduce the hack level and increase the readability and maintainability of the code. Eric