Re: [PATCH 2/18] cleanups and bug fix in do_loopback()

[Ram Pai]

On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 13:15, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> >  Yes there is some contradiction of some sorts on this. private-ness
> > means that the namespace must _not_ be accesible to processes
> > in other namespace. But 'file descriptor sent between two processes in
> > different namespaces' seems to break that guarantee.  
> 
> So..., are we going to check namespace in every file operation?  How
> much do you want to bet, that it won't break any applications?

I don't know. May be there are applications out there that depend on
this. It depends on the definition of private-ness of namespace. 
I am just saying that you raise a valid point.

I am not sure if fixing this behavior hurts more or soothes more,

Any idea?
RP


> 
> > > Also with ptrace() you can still access other process's namespace, so
> > > proc_check_root() is also too strict (or ptrace() too lax).
> > 
> > same here.
> 
> You mean, that ptrace() _is_ too lax?  Adding a namespace check to
> ptrace might well cause grief too.
> 
> The real question is, how private do we want the namespace to be.  I
> don't believe, we need to make it any more private than it currently
> is.
> 
> Miklos

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/