Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: plan9 semantics on Linux - mount namespaces
To:     Richard Weinberger <richard@sigma-star.at>
Cc:     Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <0f058286-a432-379b-f559-f2fe713807ab@metux.net>
 <2050418.Dl5pXkWGsk@blindfold>
 <4f620eb7-c00c-487b-2e06-8cc4c97af38c@metux.net>
 <60748622.exvCVAzLTp@blindfold>
From:   Enrico Weigelt <lkml@metux.net>
Organization: metux IT consult
Message-ID: <e924b563-44c6-d678-a6cc-1181f4b820d5@metux.net>
Date:   Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:21:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <60748622.exvCVAzLTp@blindfold>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 14.02.2018 16:17, Richard Weinberger wrote:

>  From taking a *very* quick look into busybox source, I suspect this should fix
> it:
> 
> diff --git a/util-linux/unshare.c b/util-linux/unshare.c
> index 875e3f86e304..3f59cf4d27c2 100644
> --- a/util-linux/unshare.c
> +++ b/util-linux/unshare.c
> @@ -350,9 +350,9 @@ int unshare_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char **argv)
>   		 * in that user namespace.
>   		 */
>   		xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_SETGROUPS, "deny");
> -		sprintf(uidmap_buf, "%u 0 1", (unsigned)reuid);
> +		sprintf(uidmap_buf, "0 %u 1", (unsigned)reuid);
>   		xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_UIDMAP, uidmap_buf);
> -		sprintf(uidmap_buf, "%u 0 1", (unsigned)regid);
> +		sprintf(uidmap_buf, "0 %u 1", (unsigned)regid);
>   		xopen_xwrite_close(PATH_PROC_GIDMAP, uidmap_buf);
>   	} else
>   	if (setgrp_str) {
> 

hmm, now it works, but only when strace'ing it.
that's really strange.

But still I wonder whether user_ns really solves my problem, as I don't
want to create sandboxed users, but only private namespaces just like
on Plan9.


--mtx

-- 
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287