"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>From ec5f54faf5afd16cb6cef40ebaaf3da25989d185 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Serge Hallyn <serue@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:52:41 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH 2/6] user namespaces: move user_ns from nsproxy into user struct > > When we get the sysfs support needed to support fair user scheduling > along with user namespaces, then we will need to be able to get the > user namespace from the user struct. > > So we need the user_ns to be a part of struct user. Once we can > access it from tsk->user, we no longer have a use for > tsk->nsproxy->user_ns. Is this true? Even in the general case of supporting setuid and setgid and everything else that potentially is in the user namespace? I certainly support the cleanups you have made for the reasons you describe. I think however that there is there are no technical reasons not to have nsproxy->user_ns after the changes have been made. I also agree that there are no technical reasons for keeping nsproxy->user_ns at the moment. > When a user_namespace is created, the user which created it is > marked as its 'creator'. The user_namespace pins the creator. > Each userid in a user_ns pins the user_ns. This keeps refcounting > nice and simple. Eric _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers