Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> clg@fr.ibm.com writes:
>> 
>> > From: Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>
>> >
>> > The following patch defines 2 new syscalls specific to nsproxy and
>> > namespaces :
>> >
>> > * unshare_ns :
>> >
>> > 	enables a process to unshare one or more namespaces. this
>> >         duplicates the unshare syscall for the moment but we
>> > 	expect to diverge when the number of namespaces increases
>> 
>> Are we out of clone flags yet?  If not this is premature.
>
> no, but a different nevertheless related question:
> does anybody, except for 'us' use the unshare() syscall?

The pam_namespace module if I have looked at things properly.  I
believe that is what it was added to support.

> because if not, then why not simply extend that one
> to 64bit and be done, we probably won't need a clone64()
> but if we find we do (at some point) adding that with
> the new flags would be trivial ...
>
> OTOH, we could also just add an unshare64() too
>
> anyway, we _will_ run out of flags in the near future

Agreed.  Please let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

>> I'm also worried about the security implications of switching
>> namespaces on a process. 
>> That is something that needs to be looked at very closely.
>
> Linux-VServer currently uses a capability to prevent
> changing between namespaces (a very generic one) but
> it probably makes sense to add something like that
> in general ... btw, did I mention that the capability
> flags are running out too?

I think they have run out.  Not that sys_capability needs a revision
but it appears the format of the data does which is likely just
as bad.

>> These two changes certainly don't belong in a single patch, 
>> and they certainly use a bit more explanation. 
>> syscalls are not something to add lightly.
>
> well, and they will take ages to get into mainline
> for all archs, or has that changed sine we reserved
> sys_vserver()?

I think it is likely a little better.  I'm not certain what
your definition of ages is. 

>> Because they must be supported forever.
>
> I'm not sure about that, most archs 'reuse' syscalls
> when there is no user left ...

I haven't seen that on i386.  Except for experimental
syscalls I have a hard time believing we have any syscalls
that have had all of their users disappear.

Reusing syscall numbers is in a lot of ways completely irresponsible
once you start supporting a binary interface.  Even if you remove
the syscall because there are no users or it makes absolutely no
sense any more.

Eric
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers