Al Viro wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:08:31PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Janak Desai:
With unshare, namespace setup can be done using PAM session
management functions without patching individual commands.
I don't think it's a good idea to use security-critical code well
without its
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 04:08:31PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Janak Desai:
>
> > With unshare, namespace setup can be done using PAM session
> > management functions without patching individual commands.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to use security-critical code well
> without its ori
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
* Janak Desai:
With unshare, namespace setup can be done using PAM session
management functions without patching individual commands.
I don't think it's a good idea to use security-critical code well
Note that this pat
Quoting Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> * Janak Desai:
>
> > With unshare, namespace setup can be done using PAM session
> > management functions without patching individual commands.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to use security-critical code well
Note that this patch is not removing
* Janak Desai:
> With unshare, namespace setup can be done using PAM session
> management functions without patching individual commands.
I don't think it's a good idea to use security-critical code well
without its original specification. Clearly the current situation
sucks, but this is mainly
Patch Summary:
This patch implements a new system call, unshare. unshare allows
a process to disassociate parts of the process context that were
initially being shared using the clone() system call.
The patch consists of two parts:
[1/2] Implements the system call handler function sys_unshare.
6 matches
Mail list logo