[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180602030913.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 04:09:14 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 30/32] vfs: Allow cloning of a mount tree with
open(O_PATH|O_CLONE_MOUNT) [ver #8]
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 09:27:43AM +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Instead of overloading this on open having a specific syscalls just
> > > seems like a much saner idea.
> >
> > It's not just mount API; these can be used independently of that.
> > Think of the uses where you pass those to ...at() and you'll see
> > a bunch of applications of that thing.
>
> I kind of agree with Christoph on this point. Yes, you can use the resultant
> fd for other things, but that doesn't mean it has to be obtained initially
> through open() or openat() rather than, say, a new pick_mount() syscall.
>
> Further, having more parameters available gives us the opportunity to change
> the settings on any mounts we create at the point of creation.
open_subtree(int dirfd, const char *pathname, int flags), then? How would
flags be interpreted? What I see mapping at that thing is
* equivalent of O_PATH open
* clone subtree, O_PATH open root
* clone one mount, O_PATH open root
and apparently you want to add (orthogonal to that)
* make shared/slave/private/unbindable
* ditto with recursion?
* same for nodev/nosuid/noexec/noatime/nodiratime/relatime/ro/?
as well as usual AT_... flags (empty path, follow)
Choose the encoding...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists