Re: [PATCH/RFC nfs-utils] exports.man: improve documentation of 'nohide' and 'crossmnt'

[NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1649 bytes --]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:06:06 -0500 Trond Myklebust
<trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:17 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:21:07PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> - note that 'nohide' is irrelevant for NFSv4
> >> - note that children on a 'crossmnt' filesystem cannot be unexported
> >> - note that 'nocrossmnt' is a valid option, but probably not useful.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I wonder if we should add a new option, e.g. "noaccess" so that children
> >> of a "crossmnt" filesystem can be hidden.  The  kernel wouldn't need to
> >> know about this.  It would just tell mountd to refuse to export that
> >> filesystem even if the parent was "crossmnt".
> >> ??
> >
> > Seems logical enough, but I can't recall seeing requests for it, and
> > the options here already seem complicated enough.
> >
> > In theory something like that could also be done with namespaces.  (So,
> > run mountd in a separate mount namespace that lacks those children.)
> 
> Agreed. It seems unnecessarily complicated to add yet another option
> to the crossmnt/nohide saga. If the "nohide" documentation is too
> complex, then we should rather aim to improve that documentation.
> 

Yes - improving the documentation was my first step, hence this patch.

Writing that documentation lead me to see that a particular configuration was
impossible - hence the question.

I have no strong desire for a change, and that seems to be common among
others, so let's just drop it.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 811 bytes --]