linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] Union mount documentation.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f5b7ec$f4g$1@sea.gmane.org>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:43:56 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:  Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] Union mount documentation.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:32:23 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2007 at 07:29:55AM +0000, Jan Blunck wrote:
>> Mounting a file system twice is bad in the first place. This should be
>> done by using bind mounts and bind a mounted file system into a union.
>> After that the normal locking rules apply (and hopefully work ;).
> 
> From the kernel POV mounting a filesystem twice is the same as doing
> a bind mount.

Somehow I thought about doing this:

 mount /dev/dasda1 /mnt/A
 mount /dev/dasda1 /mnt/B

... which doesn't result in a bind mount.

-
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/