Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Mar 2006 20:03:50 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: unhare() interface design questions and man page |
| |
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> That is, CLONE_FS, CLONE_FILES, and CLONE_VM *reverse* the > > >>>>> effects of the clone() flags of the same name, but CLONE_NEWNS > > >>>>> *has the same meaning* as the clone() flag of the same name.
Well, if this is the only problem, who cares? CLONE_NEWNS itself is actually a reversal of clone flags: unlike the others, that tell to _share_ things that normally aren't shared across a fork(), CLONE_NEWNS does the opposite: it asks to unshare something that normally is shared.
So the fact that it then acts not as a reversal when doing "unshare()" is actually consistent with the fact that it's a already a "unshare" event for clone() itself.
> Do you have any further response on this point? > (There was none in your last message?)
I personally don't think it's worth makign UNSHARE_NEWNS just because it's a flag that acts differently from the other CLONE_xxx flags.
As to whether allow or not allow unknown unshare() flags, I don't think it's a huge deal either way. Right now we don't check the flags to "clone()" either, I think.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |