On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:35:37AM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > +static int ns_create(struct container_subsys *ss, struct container *cont)
> > +{
> > + struct nscont *ns;
> > +
> > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > + return -EPERM;
>
> Does this check break existing namespace semantics in a subtle way?
> It now requires that unshare() of namespaces by any task requires
> CAP_SYS_ADMIN capabilities.
I should clarify that I am referring to unshare thr' clone here (and not
thr' sys_unshare)
> clone(.., CLONE_NEWUTS, ..)->copy_namespaces()->ns_container_clone()->
> ->container_clone()-> .. -> container_create() -> ns_create()
>
> Earlier, one could unshare his uts namespace w/o CAP_SYS_ADMIN
> capabilities. Now it is required. Is that fine? Don't know.
>
> I feel we can avoid this check totally and let the directory permissions
> take care of these checks.
>
> Serge, what do you think?
--
Regards,
vatsa
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
ckrm-tech mailing list
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ckrm-tech
