[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070417143301.GH1442@sergelap.austin.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 09:33:01 -0500
From: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@....linux.org.uk,
linuxram@...ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.osdl.org
Subject: Re: [patch 05/10] Add "permit user submounts" flag to vfsmount
Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@...redi.hu):
> > > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>
> > >
> > > If MNT_USERMNT flag is not set in the target vfsmount, then
> >
> > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT? I claim no way will people keep those
> > straight. How about MNT_ALLOWUSER and MNT_USER?
>
> Umm, is "allowuser" more clear than "usermnt"? What is allowed to the
I think so, yes. One makes it clear that we're talking about allowing
user (somethings :), one might just as well mean "this is a user mount."
> user? "allowusermnt" may be more descriptive, but it's a bit too
> long.
Yes, if it weren't too long it would by far have been my preference.
Maybe despite the length we should still go with it...
> I don't think it matters all that much, the user will have to look up
> the semantics in the manpage anyway. Is "nosuid" descriptive? Not
> very much, but we got used to it.
nosuid is quite clear. MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT are so confusing that
in the time I go from quitting the manpage to foregrounding my editor, I
may have already forgotten which was which.
-serge
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists