Am Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2018, 18:21:12 CET schrieb Enrico Weigelt:
> On 14.02.2018 16:17, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >  From taking a *very* quick look into busybox source, I suspect this
> >  should fix> 
> > it:
> > 
> > diff --git a/util-linux/unshare.c b/util-linux/unshare.c
> > index 875e3f86e304..3f59cf4d27c2 100644
> > --- a/util-linux/unshare.c
> > +++ b/util-linux/unshare.c
> > @@ -350,9 +350,9 @@ int unshare_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char **argv)
> > 
> >              * in that user namespace.
> >              */
> >             
> >             xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_SETGROUPS, "deny");
> > 
> > -           sprintf(uidmap_buf, "%u 0 1", (unsigned)reuid);
> > +           sprintf(uidmap_buf, "0 %u 1", (unsigned)reuid);
> > 
> >             xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_UIDMAP, uidmap_buf);
> > 
> > -           sprintf(uidmap_buf, "%u 0 1", (unsigned)regid);
> > +           sprintf(uidmap_buf, "0 %u 1", (unsigned)regid);
> > 
> >             xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_GIDMAP, uidmap_buf);
> >     
> >     } else
> >     if (setgrp_str) {
> 
> hmm, now it works, but only when strace'ing it.
> that's really strange.

On my box, with my patch applied, also busybox works now.
 
> But still I wonder whether user_ns really solves my problem, as I don't
> want to create sandboxed users, but only private namespaces just like
> on Plan9.

Well, I'd be surprised if that works out of the box.
Since you're posting on LKML I assumed you're hacking the kernel to support 
plan9-alike namespaces...

Thanks,
//richard

-- 
sigma star gmbh - Eduard-Bodem-Gasse 6 - 6020 Innsbruck - Austria
ATU66964118 - FN 374287y

Reply via email to