---

yaml
---
r: 74363
b: refs/heads/master
c: 2868f89
h: refs/heads/master
i:
  74361: 35bd99d
  74359: 4d92919
v: v3

[refs]

@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
 ---
-refs/heads/master: 32df81cbd5b41d281cc3d7e7ff6a98ac6201e197
+refs/heads/master: 2868f89fc43d16441a90714d4676089bdfc4255a

trunk/Documentation/00-INDEX

@@ -262,6 +262,8 @@ mtrr.txt
 	- how to use PPro Memory Type Range Registers to increase performance.
 mutex-design.txt
 	- info on the generic mutex subsystem.
+namespaces/
+	- directory with various information about namespaces
 nbd.txt
 	- info on a TCP implementation of a network block device.
 netlabel/

trunk/Documentation/namespaces/compatibility-list.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+	Namespaces compatibility list
+
+This document contains the information about the problems user
+may have when creating tasks living in different namespaces.
+
+Here's the summary. This matrix shows the known problems, that
+occur when tasks share some namespace (the columns) while living
+in different other namespaces (the rows):
+
+	UTS	IPC	VFS	PID	User	Net
+UTS	 X
+IPC		 X	 1
+VFS			 X
+PID		 1	 1	 X
+User		 2	 2		 X
+Net						 X
+
+1. Both the IPC and the PID namespaces provide IDs to address
+   object inside the kernel. E.g. semaphore with IPCID or
+   process group with pid.
+
+   In both cases, tasks shouldn't try exposing this ID to some
+   other task living in a different namespace via a shared filesystem
+   or IPC shmem/message. The fact is that this ID is only valid
+   within the namespace it was obtained in and may refer to some
+   other object in another namespace.
+
+2. Intentionally, two equal user IDs in different user namespaces
+   should not be equal from the VFS point of view. In other
+   words, user 10 in one user namespace shouldn't have the same
+   access permissions to files, belonging to user 10 in another
+   namespace.
+
+   The same is true for the IPC namespaces being shared - two users
+   from different user namespaces should not access the same IPC objects
+   even having equal UIDs.
+
+   But currently this is not so.
+