[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:27:47 -0500
From: chris hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>
To: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>
Cc: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) <maheshb@...gle.com>,
Mahesh Bandewar <mahesh@...dewar.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel-hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH resend 2/2] userns: control
capabilities of some user namespaces
On 11/09/2017 01:05 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Would the existing capability bounding set not suffice for that?
>
> The 'permanent' bounding set turns out to not be a good fit for
> the problem being discussed in this thread, but please feel free
> to start a new thread if you want to discuss your use case.
Sure. I will formulate something for a new thread. What seems to be
asked for here is a way to globally patch the capability sets of a
entire process subtree.
-chrish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
