Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Quoting Eric W. Biederman (ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx): >> >> In practice when playing around it is the difference between. >> unshare -U /bin/bash >> echo 0 1000 1 > /proc/self/uid_map >> >> And the need to pre-plan something. You can set the uid_map from the >> parent in a shell script but it is a real pain. So for just messing >> around allowing seq_ns == ns is a real advantage. > > Heh, ok - I almost always want >1 uid mapped, but I can see the > advantage. The original plan called for an upcall and >1 uid mapped. But yeah that is something else again. > Thanks. > > I don't recall whether I put this in originally, but > > Acked-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > I also wonder if -EINVAL would be a more appropriate choice here. >> > We're trying to keep things sane, rather than saying "not allowed" >> > for its own sake. >> >> A different error code might be better. > > I suppose strictly speaking (looking at errno-base.h) it would be > EBADF? Definitely not EBADF. EBADF is the error code for operating on a closed file descriptor. I want a ENOTALLOWED. Anyway. 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
