On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:37 AM Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:30:52AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Serge,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:05 AM Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:27:38AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > Hi Eric,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:30:52AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Serge,
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:05 AM Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:27:38AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Hi Eric,
> > >
> > > Currently, unless caller has CAP_SETGID in parent
Hi Serge,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:05 AM Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:27:38AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > Currently, unless caller has CAP_SETGID in parent namespace, we can
> > only map effective group id in the new user namespace. Would it be
>
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:27:38AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Currently, unless caller has CAP_SETGID in parent namespace, we can
> only map effective group id in the new user namespace. Would it be
> possible to relax this rule to also allow mapping of supplemental
> groups
Hi Eric,
Currently, unless caller has CAP_SETGID in parent namespace, we can
only map effective group id in the new user namespace. Would it be
possible to relax this rule to also allow mapping of supplemental
groups (1:1) of the caller?
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
5 matches
Mail list logo