Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx): > 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 _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers