Hello Lucian, On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:25 AM, Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Signed-off-by: Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lucian.grijincu@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > man2/unshare.2 | 4 ++++ > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/man2/unshare.2 b/man2/unshare.2 > index 051ebf5..2e43806 100644 > --- a/man2/unshare.2 > +++ b/man2/unshare.2 > @@ -93,6 +93,10 @@ its namespace which is not shared with any other process. > Specifying this flag automatically implies > .B CLONE_FS > as well. > +.TP > +.B CLONE_NEWNET " (since Linux 2.6.24)" > +Unshare the old network namespace. Specifying this flag > +will move the process into a new network namespace. > .\" As at 2.6.16, the following forced implications also apply, > .\" although the relevant flags are not yet implemented. > .\" If CLONE_THREAD is set force CLONE_VM. > -- > 1.7.1 Thanks for this proposal. I went with something a bit more consistent with flags already documented, and also included the kernel version number and capability requirements. Does it look okay to you? Cheers, Michael --- a/man2/unshare.2 +++ b/man2/unshare.2 @@ -89,6 +89,19 @@ requires the .BR CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability. .TP +.BR CLONE_NEWNET " (since Linux 2.6.24) +This flag has the same effect as the +.BR clone (2) +.B CLONE_NEWNET +flag. +Unshare the network namespace, +so that the calling process has a private copy of the +network namespace which is not shared with any other process. +.BR CLONE_NEWNET +requires the +.BR CAP_SYS_ADMIN +capability. +.TP .B CLONE_NEWNS .\" These flag name are inconsistent: .\" CLONE_NEWNS does the same thing in clone(), but CLONE_VM, -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
