[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120124002620.GI23916@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:26:20 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...onical.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>, sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] fix devpts mount behavior
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 04:13:49PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Serge Hallyn
> <serge.hallyn@...onical.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've been playing for the last week with ways to fix this, and in the
> > end I can see two ways.
>
> How about a third way:
>
> - make "newinstance" mandatory (and "-o newinstance" is a no-op) and
> forget about the whole issue.
>
> - if you really want to remount the old global one, you have to use a
> bind mount of that original mount instead.
>
> There may be some subtle reason why the above is totally broken and
> just fundamnetally wouldn't work, and breaks all existing setups, but
> maybe it's worth at least discussing as an option?
Hell knows... That's certainly what I would have prefered, but I wonder
about existing practices along the lines of "mount it in chroot jail
from inside that jail" (as opposed to mount --bind /dev/pts /jail/dev/pts
while preparing it).
Posted patch is too ugly to live and as for the new kind of namespace...
yuck. We already have far too many :-/
--
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