Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Cedric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> right. I think we can address Ulrich concerns first because we have >>> a solution for it (which looks like unsharing all namespaces at once, >>> here comes back the container object story :) >> It doesn't work because we can't create a fresh mount namespace. >> >> We need to create all new mounts (and deny access to the old ones) >> if we want to prevent all possibility of user space goof ups. >> >> While that is easy enough to build an application to do we can't >> easily enforce that in the kernel. Currently this is all >> CAP_SYS_ADMIN so only root can do this anyway. So we can easily >> say don't do that then. >> >> Clone flag consistency checking should only be used to enforce >> cases where the kernel side cannot support correctly. Currently >> the kernel has no problems with the current mix and match possibilities >> short of implementation deficiencies. So I do not see us >> addressing Ulrich's concerns with clone flags. > > ACK :) Since this all is CAP_SYS_ADMIN-ed we can do with just a warning. Fine with me. Let's come back to the document, then. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers