[Devel] Re: [patch 5/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged bind mounts

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Jan 8 2008 20:08, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 12:35 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> > +static int reserve_user_mount(void)
>> > +{
>> > +       int err = 0;
>> > +
>> > +       spin_lock(&vfsmount_lock);
>> > +       if (nr_user_mounts >= max_user_mounts && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
>> > +               err = -EPERM;
>> > +       else
>> > +               nr_user_mounts++;
>> > +       spin_unlock(&vfsmount_lock);
>> > +       return err;
>> > +} 
>> 
>> Would -ENOSPC or -ENOMEM be a more descriptive error here?  
>
>The logic behind EPERM, is that this failure is only for unprivileged
>callers.  ENOMEM is too specifically about OOM.  It could be changed
>to ENOSPC, ENFILE, EMFILE, or it could remain EPERM.  What do others
>think?

ENOSPC: No space remaining on device => 'wth'.
ENOMEM: I usually think of a userspace OOM (e.g. malloc'ed out all of your
32-bit address space on 32-bit processes)
EMFILE: "Too many open files"
ENFILE: "Too many open files in system".

ENFILE seems like a temporary winner among these four.

Back in the old days, when the number of mounts was limited in Linux,
what error value did it return? That one could be used.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers