From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752145AbdBCCio (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:38:44 -0500 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:48529 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751653AbdBCCil (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 21:38:41 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Linux API , lkml , "linux-fsdevel\@vger.kernel.org" , Andrey Vagin , James Bottomley , "W. Trevor King" , Alexander Viro References: <93e5c7f9-9dc1-6c93-ad20-0ba053d8bfef@gmail.com> <963f76f9-3ae5-b316-e688-00d3e59cad30@gmail.com> <87d1fblx2s.fsf@xmission.com> <877f5jlvs1.fsf@xmission.com> <87tw8nkh4k.fsf@xmission.com> <87a8aea1pp.fsf@xmission.com> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:34:04 +1300 In-Reply-To: <87a8aea1pp.fsf@xmission.com> (Eric W. Biederman's message of "Thu, 26 Jan 2017 17:23:46 +1300") Message-ID: <87wpd82ear.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1cZTld-0001bU-5C;;;mid=<87wpd82ear.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=101.100.131.98;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX18wCF6qjCLu6ecJcGeJHIh0KFOLp+PiWmQ= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 101.100.131.98 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4960] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_02 5+ unique symbols in subject * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;"Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 5568 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.08 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 8 (0.1%), b_tie_ro: 6 (0.1%), parse: 1.88 (0.0%), extract_message_metadata: 28 (0.5%), get_uri_detail_list: 2.4 (0.0%), tests_pri_-1000: 12 (0.2%), tests_pri_-950: 2.4 (0.0%), tests_pri_-900: 1.77 (0.0%), tests_pri_-400: 30 (0.5%), check_bayes: 28 (0.5%), b_tokenize: 11 (0.2%), b_tok_get_all: 8 (0.1%), b_comp_prob: 3.7 (0.1%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.3 (0.0%), b_finish: 0.92 (0.0%), tests_pri_0: 439 (7.9%), check_dkim_signature: 1.07 (0.0%), check_dkim_adsp: 6 (0.1%), tests_pri_500: 5039 (90.5%), poll_dns_idle: 5027 (90.3%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] Add further ioctl() operations for namespace discovery X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) 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 ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes: > "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" writes: > > >> On 25 January 2017 at 15:28, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>> My concern is that the difference between returning -EOVERFLOW and >>> overflow_uid is primarily about usability. If you haven't played with >>> the usability I don't trust that we have made the proper trade off. >> >> So, I had not initially included the no-UID-mapping case, and when you >> proposed -EOVERFLOW for that case, it seemed better. >> >> On reflection, mapping to the overflow_uid seems simpler. Taking the >> example shown in my other mail a short time ago, the unmapped UID 0 >> from the outer namespace would map to the overflow_uid (which UID my >> program would print), but my program would still correctly report that >> the UID 0 process in the outer namespace might (subject to LSM checks) >> have capabilities in the inner namespace. >> >> So, it seems that reverting the EOVERFLOW change is in order (and my >> example program thus needs no changes). Does that sound reasonable to >> you? > > It does. I just care that you have thought through the tradeoffs of > that corner of the interface design. So I have just reverted the EOVERFLOW change, applied the patches to my tree and pushed this to for-next. Otherwise this looks like this effort will have stalled. Eric