Quoting Subrata Modak ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Serge, > > I can see that CLONE_NEWIPC is being tested at various testing scenarios > of CONTAINERS specially inside the SYSVIPC Namespace category. Are you > also planning to add some patch(s) for testing: > 1) Implement sys_unshare(CLONE_SYSVSEM), > 2) Refuse clone(CLONE_SYSVSEM|CLONE_NEWIPC), and, > 3) Force unshare(CLONE_SYSVSEM), > > (added in 2.6.26) in our existing Containers testing framework. > > Regards-- > Subrata
Well, I had to think a bit whether this was getting too far into the territory of trying to test every claim made in the man-pages, which concept has some inherent dangers. But I don't see this behavior changing, so at least 2 and 3 seem worthwhile. Veerendra, would you have time this year to push patches for them? The actual tests are pretty simple. Hmm, well for (2) it is, I'm not sure offhand how you'd test for (3). Anyway, see http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0804.2/0167.html for the background, and http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/6/43 for Manfred's testcase showing the original bugs. thanks, -serge ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
