Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1450523
| From | "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] userns: sysctl limits for namespaces |
| Date | 2016-07-26 12:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rZ7MC-L7-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rXpuj-1Dd-53@gated-at.bofh.it> <rXpuh-1Dd-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hello Eric, On 07/21/2016 06:39 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > This patchset addresses two use cases: > - Implement a sane upper bound on the number of namespaces. > - Provide a way for sandboxes to limit the attack surface from > namespaces. > > The maximum sane case I can imagine is if every process is a fat > process, so I set the maximum number of namespaces to the maximum > number of threads. > > I make these limits recursive and per user namespace so that a > usernamespace root can reduce the limits further. If a user namespace > root raises the limit the limit in the parent namespace will be honored. > > I have cut this implementation to the bare minimum needed to achieve > these objectives. > > Does anyone know if there is a proper error code to return for resource > limit exceeded? I am currently using -EUSERS or -ENFILE but both of > those feel a little wrong. ENFILE certainly seems weird. I suppose my first question is: why two different errors? Some alternatives you might want to consider: E2BIG, EOVERFLOW, or (maybe) ERANGE. Cheers, Michael
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] userns: sysctl limits for namespaces "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 12:30 +0200 Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] userns: sysctl limits for namespaces ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) - 2016-07-26 17:30 +0200
csiph-web