Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue 04-09-07 18:48:52, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > >
On Tue 04-09-07 18:48:52, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > >
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > > I imagine it so that you have a machine and on it sever
On Tue 04-09-07 16:32:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > > I imagine it so that you have a machine and on it several virtual
> > > > machines which are sharing a
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Maybe before proceeding further with the discussion I'd like to
> > > understand following: What are these user namespaces supposed to be good
> > > for?
> >
>
On Thu 30-08-07 17:14:47, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Maybe before proceeding further with the discussion I'd like to
> > understand following: What are these user namespaces supposed to be good
> > for?
>
> (Please skip to the message end first, as I think
On Fri 31-08-07 12:29:53, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> +}
> +ret = nla_put_u32(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_QTYPE, dquot->dq_type);
> +if (ret)
> +goto attr_err_out;
> +ret = nla_put_u64(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_EXCESS_ID, dquot->dq_id);
Jan Kara wrote:
+ }
+ ret = nla_put_u32(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_QTYPE, dquot->dq_type);
+ if (ret)
+ goto attr_err_out;
+ ret = nla_put_u64(skb, QUOTA_NL_A_EXCESS_ID, dquot->dq_id);
+ if (ret)
+ goto attr_err_out;
+ ret = nla_put_u32(skb, QUOT
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Thu 30-08-07 14:10:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->us
On Thu 30-08-07 14:10:10, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
> > > >> is what we really want and
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There can be arbitrary number of listeners (potentially from different
> > namespaces if I understand it correctly) listening to broadcasts. So I
> > think we should pass some universal identifier rather tha
Quoting Jan Kara ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
> > >> is what we really want and not the user who's quota will be charged
> > >> it gets to
Quoting Eric W. Biederman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There can be arbitrary number of listeners (potentially from different
> > namespaces if I understand it correctly) listening to broadcasts. So I
> > think we should pass some universal identifier rather tha
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There can be arbitrary number of listeners (potentially from different
> namespaces if I understand it correctly) listening to broadcasts. So I
> think we should pass some universal identifier rather than try to find out
> who is listening etc. I think such
On Wed 29-08-07 15:06:43, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
> >> is what we really want and not the user who's quota will be charged
> >> it gets to be a really trick business, because potentially
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:06:43 MDT, Eric W. Biederman said:
> So we have to figure out how to do the hard thing which is look at
> who opened our netlink broadcast see if they are in the same user
> namespace as current->user. Which is a pain and we don't currently
> have the infrastructure for.
P
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> However I'm still confused about the use of current->user. If that
>> is what we really want and not the user who's quota will be charged
>> it gets to be a really trick business, because potentially the uid
>> we want to deliver varies depending on who o
On Wed 29-08-07 12:31:52, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I suspect the namespace virtualisation guys would be interested in a new
> >> interface which is sending current->user->uid up to userspace. uids are
> >> per-namespace now. What are the implications
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I suspect the namespace virtualisation guys would be interested in a new
>> interface which is sending current->user->uid up to userspace. uids are
>> per-namespace now. What are the implications? (cc's added)
> I know there's something going on in thi
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:26:47 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 28-08-07 21:13:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> > > netlink
> >
On Wed 29-08-07 12:00:07, Balbir Singh wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> >> netlink
> >> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've alrea
On Tue 28-08-07 21:13:35, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> > netlink
> > interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already pos
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
>> netlink
>> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted it to
>> LKML some time ago
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via netlink
>> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted it to
>> LKM
From: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:13:35 -0700
> This is it. Normally netlink payloads are represented as a struct. How
> come this one is built-by-hand?
He is using attributes, which is perfect and arbitrarily
extensible with zero backwards compatability concerns
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:13:18 +0200 Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm sending rediffed patch implementing sending of quota messages via
> netlink
> interface (some rationale in patch description). I've already posted it to
> LKML some time ago and there were no objections,
26 matches
Mail list logo
