Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Cedric Le Goater <clg@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Hello Eric, >> >> I've spent some time on the code and I'm facing some issues with the nsproxy >> API if we are to keep the mqueue namespace in nsproxy: >> >> int copy_namespaces(unsigned long flags, struct task_struct *tsk); >> void exit_task_namespaces(struct task_struct *tsk); >> void switch_task_namespaces(struct task_struct *tsk, struct nsproxy >> *new); >> void free_nsproxy(struct nsproxy *ns); >> int unshare_nsproxy_namespaces(unsigned long, struct nsproxy **, >> struct fs_struct *); >> >> nsproxy designed to work closely with the clone flags and it is not well >> suited to be called elsewhere than clone/unshare. > > Right. > >> So I could either : >> >> (1) make a special case for the mqueue namespace and duplicate some code >> to unshare it from ->get_sb() when the option 'newinstance' is used. > > This is probably the best option. > > You should be able to just wrap create_new_namespaces(flags=0,...) > to create a new one. > > And then actually perform the unshare. > > Which means in practice you will bump the ref count on > mq_ns and then drop it and insert a new mq_ns pointer but overall > that shouldn't be too bad. Thanks for the comments, Eric. I should have something ready soon. I'm currently reviewing the C/R patches that have been sent recently. C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
