Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@in.ibm.com):
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:35:37AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > > +static int ns_create(struct container_subsys *ss, struct container *cont)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct nscont *ns;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > > +		return -EPERM;
> > 
> > Does this check break existing namespace semantics in a subtle way?
> > It now requires that unshare() of namespaces by any task requires
> > CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.
> 
> I should clarify that I am referring to unshare thr' clone here (and not
> thr' sys_unshare)

That is still not true, see kernel/utsname:copy_utsname().

Now you might have run a userspace testcase in a kernel with
CONFIG_UTS_NS=n, which at the moment erroneously returns 0 rather than
-EINVAL when you clone(CLONE_NEWUTS).  But you didn't get a new uts
namespace, you were just lied to  :)

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers