on 2012/11/17 00:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > From: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns will > soon be allowed to support unshare and setns. > > The definition of creating a child pid namespace when > task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns could be that > we create a child pid namespace of current->ns_proxy->pid_ns. However > that leads to strange cases like trying to have a single process be > init in multiple pid namespaces, which is racy and hard to think > about. > > The definition of creating a child pid namespace when > task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns could be that > we create a child pid namespace of task_active_pid_ns(current). While > that seems less racy it does not provide any utility. > > Therefore define the semantics of creating a child pid namespace when > task_active_pid_ns(current) != current->ns_proxy->pid_ns to be that the > pid namespace creation fails. That is easy to implement and easy > to think about. > > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- Acked-by: Gao feng <gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
