lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] autofs4: allow autofs to work outside the initial PID namespace
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> wrote:
>>> > > MS_UNBINDABLE says: skip this mount when copying a mount tree, such
>>> > > as when the mount namespace is cloned.
>>> > >
>>> > > If you set MS_UNBINDABLE on autofs mounts then they will simply not
>>> > > appear in a cloned namespace. Which sounds like a good idea, no?
>>> >
>>> > Good point. If the desire is for a mount to be managed by autofs
>>> > setting MS_UNBINDABLE seems required.
>>>
>>> Arrgh, I know that's something I should have looked into long ago.
>>> The fact is that autofs mounts are directly related to a specific path
>>> defined by automount maps that are associated with the daemon so bind
>>> mounting them elsewhere makes no sense.
>>
>> Except, AFAICS, they do appear in the clone.
>
> Hmm, yes, apparently the semantics of MS_UNBINDABLE only apply to
> actual bind mounts not to namespace cloning. Even though the two
> operations are closely related. Not sure why this is so, but it is
> probably not a good idea to change the semantics at this point.

And for whatever reason this appears deliberate.

CL_COPY_ALL in copy_tree allows the copy.

The selected semantics of namespace sharing tend to mystify me.

So I don't know how much MS_UNBINDABLE helps over MS_PRIVATE. Both
prevent propogation of changes to other namespaces. I don't know how
much using MS_UNBINDABLE to also prevent bind mounts helps.

Eric



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-26 16:21    [W:0.058 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site