OpenVZ Forum


Home » Mailing lists » Devel » [patch -mm 00/17] new namespaces and related syscalls
Re: [patch -mm 10/17] nsproxy: add unshare_ns and bind_ns syscalls [message #16883 is a reply to message #16863] Sat, 09 December 2006 04:18 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Herbert Poetzl is currently offline  Herbert Poetzl
Messages: 239
Registered: February 2006
Senior Member
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?

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

> > * bind_ns :
> > 	
> > 	allows a process to bind
> > 	1 - its nsproxy to some identifier
> > 	2 - to another nsproxy using an identifier or -pid
> 
> NAK
> 
> Don't use global identifiers. Use pids. i.e. struct pid * for your
> identifiers. Is there is a reason pids are unsuitable?

yes, see my reply in the other mail

> 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?

> 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()?

> Because they must be supported forever.

I'm not sure about that, most archs 'reuse' syscalls
when there is no user left ...

best,
Herbert

> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@lists.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@lists.osdl.org
https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: seems to be a flaw in cfq
Next Topic: [PATCH] compat offsets size change
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Oct 06 14:25:18 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04622 seconds