To: haveblue@us.ibm.com
CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org, serue@us.ibm.com,
       viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, ebiederm@xmission.com, kzak@redhat.com,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org,
       util-linux-ng@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-reply-to: <1199815958.9834.58.camel@localhost> (message from Dave Hansen on
	Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:12:38 -0800)
Subject: Re: [patch 5/9] unprivileged mounts: allow unprivileged bind mounts
References: <20080108113502.184459371@szeredi.hu>
	 <20080108113626.895583537@szeredi.hu> <1199815958.9834.58.camel@localhost>
Message-Id: <E1JCJoQ-0003g9-Nk@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 20:08:34 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 952
Lines: 27

> 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?

Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/