[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101230104416.GA31824@shutemov.name>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:44:16 +0200
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kas@...nvz.org>
To: Rob Landley <rlandley@...allels.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kas@...nvz.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] make rpc_pipefs be mountable multiple time
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 04:05:07AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 12/30/2010 03:44 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> If no rpcmount mountoption, no rpc_pipefs was found at
> >>> '/var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs' and we are in init's mount namespace, we use
> >>> init_rpc_pipefs.
> >>
> >> It's the "we are in init's mount namespace" that I was wondering about.
> >>
> >> So if I naievely chroot, nfs mount stops working the way it did before I
> >> chrooted unless I do an extra setup step?
> >
> > No. It will work as before since you are still in init's mount namespace.
> > Creating new mount namespace changes rules.
>
> Ah, CLONE_NEWNS and then you need /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs. Got it.
>
> I'm kind of surprised that the kernel cares about a specific path under
> /var/lib. (Seems like policy in the kernel somehow.)
Yep. It's bad, but there is way to overwrite the default.
Other way is to leave 'rpcmount' mountoption without default.
get_rpc_pipefs(NULL) in init's mount namespace will always return
init_rpc_pipefs, without filesystem lookup.
get_rpc_pipefs(NULL) in non-init's mount namespace will always return
error.
So you will have to specify 'rpcmount' mountoption for every nfs mount in
container. Hmm, I guess, it may confuse user.
Or we can try to move the default to userspace. /sbin/mount.nfs?
> Can't it just
> check the current process's mount list to see if an instance of
> rpc_pipefs is mounted in the current namespace the way lxc looks for
> cgroups? Or are there potential performance/scalability issues with that?
What should we do if we have several rpc_pipefs mounts in the namespace?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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