[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150114221011.GC7071@fieldses.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:10:11 -0500
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Ian Kent <ikent@...hat.com>
Cc: Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <onestero@...hat.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@...marydata.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Second attempt at contained helper execution
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 05:32:22PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > There are other difficulties to tackle as well, such as how to decide
> > if contained helper execution is needed. For example, if a mount has
> > been propagated to a container or bound into the container tree (such
> > as with the --volume option of "docker run") the root init namespace
> > may need to be used and not the container namespace.
I think you have to go through each of the existing upcall examples and
decide what's needed for each.
At least for the nfsv4 idmapper I would've thought the namespace the
mount was done in would be the right choice, hence my previous question.
--b.
--
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