Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag

[Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>]

On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:56 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > Also for bind-mount and remount operations the flag has to be propagated
> > > > down its propagation tree.  Otherwise a unpriviledged mount in a shared
> > > > mount wont get reflected in its peers and slaves, leading to unidentical
> > > > shared-subtrees.
> > > 
> > > That's an interesting question.  Do we want shared mounts to be
> > > totally identical, including mnt_flags?  It doesn't look as if
> > > do_remount() guarantees that currently.
> > 
> > Depends on the semantics of each of the flags. Some flags like of the
> > read/write flag, would not interfere with the propagation semantics
> > AFAICT.  But this one certainly seems to interfere.
> 
> That depends.  Current patches check the "unprivileged submounts
> allowed under this mount" flag only on the requested mount and not on
> the propagated mounts.  Do you see a problem with this?

Don't see a problem if the flag is propagated to all peers and slave
mounts. 

If not, I see a problem. What if the propagated mount has its flag set
to not do un-priviledged mounts, whereas the requested mount has it
allowed?

RP



> 
> Miklos