From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: John Ericson <mail@johnericson.me>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Li Chen <me@linux.beauty>,
Cong Wang <cwang@multikernel.io>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>,
Sergei Zimmerman <sergei@zimmerman.foo>,
Farid Zakaria <farid.m.zakaria@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Null Namespaces
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 02:10:23 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260625011023.GM2636677@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <103524f8-1658-41df-88e9-cf49c628a721@app.fastmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 07:53:53PM -0400, John Ericson wrote:
> I wanted to discuss a bit about each type of namespace to indicate that
> this is a concept I think works across the board --- it wouldn't be such
> a good solution for the process spawning API if it was only applicable
> to some but not all namespace types. But the truth is that I have
> thought about the FS cases the most, as I think you have picked up on.
>
> If there is interest in landing
>
> 1. null CWD
> 2. null root fs
> 3. null mount namespace
>
> in isolation, and then returning to the other namespaces to iron out
> their details, that would be fantastic. It would be much nicer for me to
> get some momentum that way, without having to design everything all at
> once first before getting to implement anything.
Please, start with explaining what, in your opinion, a mount namespace _is_,
and where does "mount X is attached at path P relative to mount Y" belong.
What's the fundamental difference between CWD and any open descriptor for
a directory? Why does it make sense to ban the former, but allow the
equivalents done via the latter?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-25 1:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-24 22:51 [RFC] Null Namespaces John Ericson
2026-06-24 23:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2026-06-24 23:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2026-06-24 23:53 ` John Ericson
2026-06-25 1:10 ` Al Viro [this message]
2026-06-25 3:41 ` John Ericson
2026-06-24 23:12 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260625011023.GM2636677@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=cwang@multikernel.io \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=farid.m.zakaria@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mail@johnericson.me \
--cc=me@linux.beauty \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=sergei@zimmerman.foo \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.