[Devel] Re: [patch -mm 10/17] nsproxy: add unshare_ns and bind_ns syscalls

[Cedric Le Goater]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:

>> because if not, then why not simply extend that one
>> to 64bit and be done, we probably won't need a clone64()
>> but if we find we do (at some point) adding that with
>> the new flags would be trivial ...
>>
>> OTOH, we could also just add an unshare64() too
>>
>> anyway, we _will_ run out of flags in the near future
> 
> Agreed.  Please let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

How many are left right now ? isn't it 4 ?

#define CLONE_CHILD_SETTID	0x01000000	/* set the TID in the child */
#define CLONE_STOPPED		0x02000000	/* Start in stopped state */
#define CLONE_NEWUTS		0x04000000	/* New utsname group? */
#define CLONE_NEWIPC		0x08000000	/* New ipcs */

#define CLONE_NEWPID		0x10000000
#define CLONE_NEWUSER		0x20000000
#define CLONE_NEWNET		0x40000000
				0x80000000

I think the bridge is crossed. Leaving one available clone 
flag is not an option to me.

C.