From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ram Pai Subject: Re: [Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] add "permit user mounts in new namespace" clone flag Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:14:29 -0700 Message-ID: <1176743669.9488.62.camel@ram.us.ibm.com> References: <20070412164541.580374744@szeredi.hu> <20070412164620.588752236@szeredi.hu> <20070412203208.GG27772@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <1176713221.9488.17.camel@ram.us.ibm.com> <1176716941.9488.57.camel@ram.us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: devel@openvz.org, serue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Received: from e6.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.146]:35559 "EHLO e6.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753423AbXDPRle (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:41:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org 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