From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: iproute2: potential upgrade regression with 58a3e827 Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:40:47 -0800 Message-ID: <871u2mblzk.fsf@xmission.com> References: <527D2768.1030403@canonical.com> <527E6A32.5020808@hp.com> <52814B88.1050708@canonical.com> <1384205890.2758.28.camel@dilip-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Chris J Arges , Brian Haley , shemminger@osdl.org, "netdev\@vger.kernel.org" To: dilip.daya@hp.com Return-path: Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:58232 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752438Ab3KKWkz (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:40:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1384205890.2758.28.camel@dilip-laptop> (Dilip Daya's message of "Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:38:10 -0500") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dilip Daya writes: > Hi Chris, > > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 15:26 -0600, Chris J Arges wrote: > >> Good suggestion, >> So I'll use a more simple example now: >> >> 1) >> ip netns add first >> ip netns exec first bash >> >> 2) >> ip netns add second >> ip netns exec second bash >> >> 3) >> ip netns exec first bash >> >> If we do not upgrade the package, after we execute (2) we have: >> # ls -l /var/run/netns >> total 0 >> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Nov 11 20:38 first >> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Nov 11 20:38 second >> >> If we upgrade after (1), then run (2) we have: >> # ls -l /var/run/netns >> total 0 >> ---------- 1 root root 0 Nov 11 20:56 first >> -r-------- 1 root root 0 Nov 11 20:57 second >> >> So looks like netns add is doing something different from 58a3e827 and on. I will just add that it is worth looking at /proc/mounts as well. Although I have to admit that the difference in permissions is odd. Eric