Other idea: the control process stays outside the setns() and knows the PID of the child, right? Could that process open the file and send the content as message via the shared command socket? Seems less intrusive to me than adding more clone()s in the chain from control process to guest process?
Damn, that is bad. I missed this one.
Other idea: the control process stays outside the setns() and knows the PID of the child, right? Could that process open the file and send the content as message via the shared command socket? Seems less intrusive to me than adding more clone()s in the chain from control process to guest process?