On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 12:15:28AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > +/* > + * Rules: you can only create a container if > + * 1. you are capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) > + * 2. the target container is a descendant of your own container > + */ > +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. 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/