[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1231286930.14345.196.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:08:50 -0800
From: Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Cedric Le Goater <clg@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: Use utsnamespaces
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 17:42 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:58 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>
> > So should we use patch 2/4, plus (as someone - was it you? - suggested)
> > using a DEFAULT instead of init_utsname()->nodename when
> > current->utsname() == NULL?
>
> No. I'm don't think that 2/4 is correct either. Basically, 2/4 is saying
> that the container that first mounts the filesystem 'owns' it. However
> at the same time we know that the lifetime of the filesystem is in no
> way bounded by the lifetime of the container, and that's what gets you
> into trouble with 'umount' in the first place.
>
> IMO, the current code is the most correct approach, in that it assumes
> that the filesystems are owned by the 'init' namespace.
IMHO This seems more incorrect than trying to use a more proximal
namespace.
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
--
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