Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
