From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Van Hensbergen Subject: Re: [RFC][2.6 patch] Allow creation of new namespaces during mount system call Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:53:29 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20050419222324.GM13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Reply-To: Eric Van Hensbergen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.192]:43672 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261230AbVDSXxa convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:53:30 -0400 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so977wra for ; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:53:30 -0700 (PDT) To: Al Viro In-Reply-To: <20050419222324.GM13052@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 4/19/05, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 05:13:32PM -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > > The motivation behind this patch is to make private namespaces more > > accessible by allowing their creation at mount/bind time. > > > > *UGH* > > So what happens to those who happen to share task->fs with the parent? > Okay, I'll admit to being a bit too hasty with pushing out that patch - I was being particularly myopic looking for a solution only for a command-line mount. Are you generally opposed to new namespace creation at mount time or just my slimy hack? A shared task->fs seems like something which could be easily checked against and disallowed. -eric