|
Message-ID: <6b2cbf61-f1d7-76c7-1361-7d807d05829f@oracle.com> 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.