linux-kernel - Re: Feature request, "create on mount" to create mount point directory on mount, implied remove on unmount

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1436111210.16546.29.camel@jonspc>
Date:	Sun, 05 Jul 2015 16:46:50 +0100
From:	jon <jon@...shouse.co.uk>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, coreutils@....org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Feature request, "create on mount" to create mount point
 directory on mount, implied remove on unmount

On Sun, 2015-07-05 at 15:29 +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 11:48:28PM +0100, jon wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but like I say automount is normally based on an event. I am simply
> > talking about a flag/switch that can be used for optional implied
> > mkdir,rmdir around calls to mount() unount() - nothing more, nothing
> > less !
> 
> umount(2) is not the only way for mount to detached from a mountpoint.
> There's exit(2) as well - when the last process in a namespace exits, it
> gets dissolved.  What should happen upon those?  Even more interesting question
> is what should happen if you do such mount, then clone a process into a new
> namespace and have it exit.  Should _that_ rmdir the hell out of that
> mountpoint (presumably detaching everything mounted on it in all namespaces)?
> 

I should have titled it "Feature request from a simple minded user"

I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.  

When I learnt *nix it did not have "name spaces" in reference to process
tables.  I understand the theory of VM a bit, the model in my mind each
"machine", be that one kernel on a true processor or a VM instance has
"a process table" and "a file descriptor table" etc - anything more is
beyond my current level of knowledge.

Containers for example are something I dont understand in two ways. I
dont truely understand the theory, I also dont understand why in a world
of true VM  someone would want to make something as complex as linux
even more complex using containers for what seems little or no benefit.

--
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/