Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Srivatsa Vaddagiri (vatsa@xxxxxxxxxx):
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 04:57:55PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > That is still not true, see kernel/utsname:copy_utsname().
> > 
> > Now you might have run a userspace testcase in a kernel with
> > CONFIG_UTS_NS=n, which at the moment erroneously returns 0 rather than
> > -EINVAL when you clone(CLONE_NEWUTS).  But you didn't get a new uts
> > namespace, you were just lied to  :)
> 
> I think you are right here, in that CONFIG_UTS_NS was not turned on,
> although I was thinking it was on.
> 
> However as a result of this experiment, I found this anomaly:
> 
> - On a kernel with CONFIG_UTS_NS=n, a test which does
>   clone(CLONE_NEWUTS) works fine. clone() succeeds and the child
>   starts running with no error.
> - On the same kernel, if ns container hierarchy is mounted, then
>   the test fails. clone() returns failure and child is never created.
>   As soon as the ns container hierarchy is unmounted, the test works
>   again.
> 
> I would have expected a consistent behavior here, irrespective of
> whether ns hierarchy is mounted or not. Is this difference in behavior
> acceptable? Returning -EINVAL in copy_utsname() when CONFIG_UTS_NS=n, as
> you say above, would fix this anomaly.

Will, not would, fix the anomaly  :)

2.6.21-rc5-mm2 has the correct behavior.  Returning 0 was a bug.

thanks,
-serge
-
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/