On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:06:20PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 09:47:25AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-02-05 at 15:14 +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > > > > > + /* If running within a container use the container namespace */ > > > > + if (current->nsproxy->net_ns != &init_net) > > > > > > Is that a viable check? Is it possible to have a container that shares > > > networking details? > > > > That's up for discussion. > > > > I thought about it and concluded that the check is probably not > > sufficient for any of the cases. > > > > I left it like that because I'm not sure exactly what the use cases are, > > hoping it promote discussion and here we are. > > > > I also think the current container environments don't share net > > namespace with the root init net namspace, necessarily, because thy are > > containers, ;) > > > > TBH I haven't looked at the user space container creation code but I > > expect it could be done that way if it was needed, so the answer is yes > > and no, ;) > > > > The questions then are do we need to check anything else, and what > > environment should the callback use in the different cases, and what > > other cases might break if we change it? > > > > For example, should the fs namespace also be checked for all of these > > cases, since we're executing a callback, or is whatever that's set to in > > the container always what's required for locating the executable. > > What would be the disadvantage of setting UMH_USE_NS unconditionally > here?
In the nfs idmapping case, the mapping is per-nfs_client. Can nfs_idmap_new be the one that calls umh_get_init_task, with the corresponding put done in nfs_idmap_delete, or is there some reason that doesn't work? --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
