[Devel] Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] add user namespace [try #2]

[Eric W. Biederman]

Cedric Le Goater <clg at fr.ibm.com> writes:

> Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> as I said, I'd opt for having a new clone() syscall in
>> addition to the existing one, with a separate 64bit
>> set of flags to decide what namespaces should be created
>> or cloned. there is no problem with putting 'important'
>> or generally 'useful' flags (like for example for pid,
>> uts or lightweight network isolation) into the existing
>> clone call (will require a simple mapping if done properly)
>> so that they can be used with 'older' libc interfaces too
>> 
>> I know, it would be 'nice' to keep the existing clone()
>> interface, but I think it already has become a complication
>> we should avoid (and we have not even used up all the
>> available flags :)
>
> agree and so does Kirill.
>
>> are there any strong arguments against having a new
>> clone() syscall, which I was missing so far?
>
> I don't see any.
>
> I'm going to revive execns() syscall into a clone_ns() syscall as suggested
> by Kirill and you. Then, others will be free to nack ;)

I think it is silly, but I see not real problems with the idea.

Eric