From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from flow-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com (flow-a4-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00E7130566D; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:24:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.139 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782411848; cv=none; b=eG8zCSo/mkPwACsvYBZWSX9OKJxNFF9Gqf57OEjGv335JnnY3zJKArdgcYXvh66+UVWRYznD9OZQt/jWJapDM7AbytqW6iWSWsivvk6Kx+f2XV2BHGH6BqQI4LhvxVOegxS1WOWRjouURLmTq3FiNUu7BlixnEVm8+AbP2z3F1o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782411848; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FxbkPs6VOjJEhJrxoI/4FTDTG7hckuRIEReabgvOAP0=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Message-Id:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:Content-Type; b=QNiCtVoi11EbmLhsNmh9U3xLu1szFOijP0NwZ2AV2U7jPo+aIMm7HedO6+5aWhO83VG9WQfcvsFtW7nOsBENtSfkDX5mveOjPJqc/bQvV158MzsYHA7o3BJR8F9WdMBn2BCA+QlNiy7Ve1KGCVsAP3hhKYlFNgJgIHh4bTsH2aM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=johnericson.me; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=johnericson.me; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=johnericson.me header.i=@johnericson.me header.b=fPrig3KX; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=U0Ki/W1F; arc=none smtp.client-ip=103.168.172.139 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=johnericson.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=johnericson.me Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=johnericson.me header.i=@johnericson.me header.b="fPrig3KX"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="U0Ki/W1F" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailflow.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A791380923; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:24:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-imap-16 ([10.202.2.88]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:24:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=johnericson.me; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm3; t=1782411845; x=1782419045; bh=m+Vo2gCieDBsezt/WtRstmVlDLfhdQBZ 5OOOQny6uNo=; b=fPrig3KXrFd/rGV3bv52ys5LKfDurXDKhX/ELM+7I3U9NfuQ Y+gEvJA+Jno6b07JbxGRlspTVYgfJ3F3Rcubr0WIfghfABaDVOtDkJZAv4spExnr q/Ug7opOpLRBTlXYb9+0vHVYQIuhSC0YXe/HvE0hhZmg02Ld1eONlgYOAdpbGBls /NQ/h6pTh8qm8hRvh2BTzdWF86FFXz+n0W/SJqWvTPm3/JkLnFY+bWEov3BhxFuH UFvIdmJnPDXCzYXDjoSUv0LriWkpD6bnoqHlCsJEKrKTk+1JcGCNJX4YTw/+j6Kr NEE5zMiYs8nNDBQFi6IX6RQO3nr/5q5kidKTbA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; t=1782411845; x= 1782419045; bh=m+Vo2gCieDBsezt/WtRstmVlDLfhdQBZ5OOOQny6uNo=; b=U 0Ki/W1FjTNtxYNqKU4vKMUlYvANglhLeNHrUI1gKy2reTy4+cHq+AJr2OIBQtPCs R0isubLk5GH5U2pr5EzXa7TWhgDHxODxFiYRQqblJWwabJ62HYNIR9wwB2+JuGq5 zV5kUJdHcf21i/reIkepyODko7OdjwbFGmMxY3WtdLGI/5OsaHyiPX4DJRr8rlG1 SJHzOhriI2azsW5UCtq+tX84HSaD8UkZjIz1ultHg8LwHfp8Z/HRFNJztD9CSv6/ IDTfp57ZBOjUTkjPhaUYM3HoywO0wyiw025G53X/6ey9/5BRl/EfOA6WBGmYdH28 tICPEO2bYjuUNRrcXL03g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: dmFkZTFyeIi362Iqgeflrx8SfWAUimV8NIXGDAs+oBvs4keGPehc5LIzevdlDF0NWjSyQe rjGOMj50/KDiHVtZOqMyMBNvHW2R+Hk9mKiNHsA809U87AAei98vwrZfj+SF+BxrBfw3BH DGa9FVsenW85K+hrP0YbDmL8jDLqb14lON88z8hgHIiUF1/tugD1lJWE2yCw4QwNc3AK19 XkVh8vdvrtZxIdo5ZkFG3SdpfiR8BHfahKU7c/IpRWZodUAE4QWkcdH/cPUjie2XMxkf2W LZxcLMTKYscUj8LMA452mVjsF6Z1N+EavWYsvbSKavRMKBZYO1qk030/WuVljWBZTt0noO V25ok3cp+J+f9se3nVgiOrW/95O1228fxtVxvVASCzAIIwnKuwu0TMve6p3gHtHwsqXTiV npPMWjLAxJRggUkksQGraXveoEm3MforjDhqXB6WzeVyixLJy/UqTbShs6FhgrbIc5B5K2 R8Xe1aUmz053Gf43Qy1iJlbrd1mMYxkqbbuL2o/Ix72e4BCsFzZ9E9faIdK8Ltv4xvu76z m6tKpO/po0RjOXPtNHY9bMOBLdUvfn3rmGz++o//x6Y4N42JWiFyPo7rB2W2N8kjX1c5YS 63jKXAElC9xow0rwAIljNLJsLyxdHnR/WbmxAu9ZG0MTWx49BRiwEM+xmv+A X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ieb4144f1:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.phl.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 53D2E2CC0088; Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:24:03 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThreadId: AG8qDlxFSDr7 Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2026 14:21:01 -0400 From: "John Ericson" To: "Andy Lutomirski" Cc: "Al Viro" , "Li Chen" , "Cong Wang" , "Christian Brauner" , linux-arch , LKML , linux-fsdevel , linux-api , "Arnd Bergmann" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Borislav Petkov" , "Dave Hansen" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Jan Kara" , "Jonathan Corbet" , "Shuah Khan" , "Kees Cook" , "Sergei Zimmerman" , "Farid Zakaria" Message-Id: <829ad432-8312-45af-bd8e-8b079e8c6226@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <103524f8-1658-41df-88e9-cf49c628a721@app.fastmail.com> <20260625011023.GM2636677@ZenIV> Subject: Re: [RFC] Null Namespaces Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jun 25, 2026, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 8:41=E2=80=AFPM John Ericson wrote: > > It's sort of a combination -- read the data structures :) Other than > the propagation part, they're really not that bad. Are you saying path resolution *does* depend on the mount namespace that the task belongs to? I certainly hope not! I did look over the data structures along with my patches and I didn't see an example of this --- just path resolution depending on the CWD and root directories (as one would expect it to). > In any event, I think this discussion is sort of immaterial to the > proposed API change. No one is about to remove the concept of a mount > namespace. But maybe it makes sense to have a way to have a task that > doesn't actually belong to a mount namespace. A mount namespace is > certainly going to exist. I am not sure if that is addressed more to Al or me? I certainly do agree with all that, in any case. Mount namespaces are absolutely here to stay, and I'm just trying to make a process that does not belong to one; that's exactly correct. Sorry if my motivation by way of historical analysis veered off topic. > There will definitely be subtleties. For example, what happens if a > task with "no mount namespace" tries to do OPEN_TREE_CLONE? In some > logical sense it ought to work but it ought to be impossible to > actually mount the resulting tree anywhere, but this risks running > afoul of all kinds of checks. Maybe you get a whole new mount > namespace (that does not become your current mnt_ns) if you > OPEN_TREE_CLONE? > > This stuff is complex and it probably makes more sense to keep changes= simple. Yes it is subtle; I definitely don't claim to fully understand the permission model with mount namespace modifications yet, for one. Should we switch gears to just discussing the null CWD and root directories, then, and return to mount namespaces later? I have started to rework my patch series accordingly, so I have a new draft first patch for just that, before changing anything else. I could (after some testing) submit that next; it's pretty small. John