[PATCH 2/6] user namespaces: move user_ns from nsproxy into user struct
Eric W. Biederman
ebiederm at xmission.com
Mon Jul 28 14:41:33 PDT 2008
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue at us.ibm.com> writes:
>>From ec5f54faf5afd16cb6cef40ebaaf3da25989d185 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Serge Hallyn <serue at us.ibm.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:52:41 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH 2/6] user namespaces: move user_ns from nsproxy into user struct
> When we get the sysfs support needed to support fair user scheduling
> along with user namespaces, then we will need to be able to get the
> user namespace from the user struct.
> So we need the user_ns to be a part of struct user. Once we can
> access it from tsk->user, we no longer have a use for
Is this true? Even in the general case of supporting setuid and setgid
and everything else that potentially is in the user namespace?
I certainly support the cleanups you have made for the reasons you describe.
I think however that there is there are no technical reasons not to have
nsproxy->user_ns after the changes have been made. I also agree that
there are no technical reasons for keeping nsproxy->user_ns at the moment.
> When a user_namespace is created, the user which created it is
> marked as its 'creator'. The user_namespace pins the creator.
> Each userid in a user_ns pins the user_ns. This keeps refcounting
> nice and simple.
More information about the Containers