Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 3/3] vfs: Fix a regression in mounting proc

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Just to avoid the possible confusion, let me repeat that the fix itsef
looks "obviously fine" to me, "i_nlink != 2" looks obviously wrong.

I am not arguing with this patch, I am just trying to understand this
logic.

On 11/27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> [... snip ...]

Thanks a lot.

> For the real concern about jail environments where proc and sysfs are
> not mounted at all a fs_visible check is all that is really required,

this is what I can't understand...

Lets ignore the implementation details. Suppose that proc was never
mounted. Then "mount -t proc" should fail after CLONE_NEWUSER | NEWNS?

Oleg.

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers




[Index of Archives]     [Cgroups]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux