| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 01:29:48 +0100 From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Cc: Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com> Subject: Re: Removing shared subtrees? On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:14:55PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I understand that: > > # mount --make-rshared / > # mount --rbind / /mnt > # umount - /mnt/dev > > should unmount /dev. That's the whole point. But why does unmounting > */mnt* propagate like that? It doesn't unmount /. To me, this makes > about as much sense as having 'umount -l /mnt/dev' unmount /dev/pts > but *not* /dev would make. Aha. And what, pray tell, does umount -l /mnt do to mounts deeper in the tree? Forget about shared, etc. - what, in your opinion, does umount -l mean wrt the stuff mounted on /mnt? /mnt/dev, for example... > > What for? > > Simplicity and comprehensibility. Such an elegant way to say "I can't be arsed to read"... For what it's worth: MNT_DETACH is *not* "detach the subtree as whole, busy or not". It's "unmount all mounts within the subtree, busy or not". At which point the self-LART you keep describing becomes quite easy to comprehend, doesn't it? -- 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