Dave, On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 09:28:52AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 08:25:23AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > Hey, > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 10:21:19AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:40:21PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 11:07:09PM -0400, Dwight Engen wrote: > > > > > >From e6a9ee0cfa0ed40484f66bc1726dc19de36038b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > > > > From: Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 09:52:54 -0400 > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 7/7] enable building user namespace with xfs > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Was there a patch running around to limit bulkstat to init_user_ns? Any other > > > > items that needed to be addressed before applying this patch? > > > > > > Bulkstat has a capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) check and therefore can only be > > > executed in the init name space. Similarly, all the open-by-handle > > > interfaces have the same capable() checks so they can only be > > > executed int he init name space, too. > > > > Gah. I was under the impression that you could have a process with > > CAP_SYS_ADMIN in a namespace other than init_user_ns. > > Ben, until about a week and a half ago I was also working under that > same understanding as you. Well huh. According to Dwight you can have a process with CAP_SYS_ADMIN in a namespace other than init_user_ns. Kinda cool, IMO. -Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
