Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx): >> To save nsproxy, or to not save nsproxy? >> >> Don't think much, save it. >> >> I argue that nsproxy should be removed totally, if someone thinks otherwise. ;-) > > You've got Oren starting to agree with you too. I personally don't > much care in principle, and your code looks very nice. Heh ... as a matter of fact I always agreed with him about that. (and the irc logs can tell the story :) In fact, we have much more in agreement than none. That's what I have been arguing ! Now it's time to settle the disagreements... Oren. > > The way you do this and the uts patch, though, you (of course) bypass > the CAP_SYS_ADMIN check in copy_namespaces(). Which is fine for your > patchset, but a problem if we were to base a compromise patchset on > your patchset. > > It of course also enforces the 'leakage' checks, which again is > subject to our whole-container c/r discussion. > > But again, the code is nice, and I see no problems in it. > > -serge > _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
