Quoting Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org):
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 12:58:45 -0600
> "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > > If we need to I can see doing something special if the process setting
> > > fown has CAP_KILL
> > 
> > Obviously CAP_KILL is insufficient :)  I assume you mean a new
> > CAP_XNS_CAP_KILL?
> > 
> > > and bypassing the security checks that way, but
> > > hard coding rules like that when it doesn't appear we have any
> > > experience to indicate we need the extra functionality looks
> > > premature.
> > 
> > Ok, in this case actually I suspect you're right and we can just ditch
> > the exception.  But in general the security discussion is one we should
> > still have.
> 
> People like security.
> 
> Where do we now stand with this patch, and with "[PATCH 4/8] user ns: hook permission"?

Later today I can send a patch against this set which removes the
the init_task exceptions (out of patch 3 and patch 7), but I'd prefer
to leave the MS_SHARED_NS option (patch 6) in.

thanks,
-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers