Eric W. Biederman wrote:
quoted text
> Oren Laadan <orenl@cs.columbia.edu> writes:
> 
>> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> Yet another set of per-namespace IDs along with CLONE_NEWXXX ones?
>>>>>> I currently have a way to create all namespaces we have with one
>>>>>> syscall. Why don't we have an ability to enter them all with one syscall?
>>>>> The CLONE_NEWXXX series of bits has been an royal pain to work with,
>>>>> and it appears to be unnecessary complications for no gain.
>>>> That's the answer for the "Yet another set..." question.
>>>> How about the "Why don't we have..." one?
>>> I am not certain which question you are asking:
>>>
>>> Why don't we have an ability to enter all namespaces with one syscall
>>> invocation?
>> That's how I understood the question, and I, too, wonder why not ?
>>
>> By the way, an alternative to using bitmap is to change the prototype
>> of setns() to accept an array of FD's:
>>
>> 	int setns(int *fds, int nfds);
>>
>> So the process will atomically enter all the namespaces as specified
>> by the FDs.
> 
> We could.  Mostly I implemented things in the simplest way possible.
> 
> Semantically I know of no reason why need to enter more than one namespace
> at once, and I don't expect entering a namespace to be on anyone's fast
> path so every last drop of performance was not crucial.
> 
> The only justification I can think of for more than one namespace at a
> time is that because we have a synchronize_rcu() in the kernel we can
> loop in the kernel much more quickly than we can loop in userspace.

Can't think of a specific scenario, but I wonder if there would
be a problem (security or otherwise) with a process that only
partly belongs to a container, even if for a short time ?

Oren.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html