"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 25 January 2017 at 15:28, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> My concern is that the difference between returning -EOVERFLOW and >> overflow_uid is primarily about usability. If you haven't played with >> the usability I don't trust that we have made the proper trade off. > > So, I had not initially included the no-UID-mapping case, and when you > proposed -EOVERFLOW for that case, it seemed better. > > On reflection, mapping to the overflow_uid seems simpler. Taking the > example shown in my other mail a short time ago, the unmapped UID 0 > from the outer namespace would map to the overflow_uid (which UID my > program would print), but my program would still correctly report that > the UID 0 process in the outer namespace might (subject to LSM checks) > have capabilities in the inner namespace. > > So, it seems that reverting the EOVERFLOW change is in order (and my > example program thus needs no changes). Does that sound reasonable to > you? It does. I just care that you have thought through the tradeoffs of that corner of the interface design. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
