From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Cox Subject: Re: BUG: Mount ignores mount options Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:35:02 +0100 Message-ID: <20180813173502.1a7a1d9c@alans-desktop> References: <20180810153902.GH21087@thunk.org> <87d0uqpba5.fsf@xmission.com> <153313703562.13253.5766498657900728120.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <22361.1533913891@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <28045.1533916438@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20180810161400.GA627@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , David Howells , "Eric W. Biederman" , Al Viro , John Johansen , Tejun Heo , SELinux-NSA , Paul Moore , Li Zefan , Linux API , apparmor@lists.ubuntu.com, Casey Schaufler , Fenghua Yu , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Eric Biggers , LSM List , Tetsuo Handa , Johannes Weiner , Stephen Smalley , tomoyo-dev-en@lists.s List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org > If the same block device is visible, with rw access, in two different > containers, I don't see any anything good can happen. Sure, with the At the raw level there are lots of use cases involving high performance data capture, media streaming and the like. At the file system layer you can use GFS2 for example. So there are cases where it's possible. There are even cases where it's actually useful at the filesystem level although not many I agree. Alan