From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422773AbWBICRv (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:17:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422775AbWBICRv (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:17:51 -0500 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:23172 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422773AbWBICRu (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:17:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 02:17:49 +0000 From: Al Viro To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] fix handling of st_nlink on procfs root Message-ID: <20060209021749.GM27946@ftp.linux.org.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 06:04:36PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > There are some other similar problems still in /proc. > > In my pid namespace work I have some managed to clean most of > this up, and finally split proc into two filesystems. > > The only was I was able to get the union to work was > to let lookup return files in an internal mount. > > The only problem was that /proc/irq/.. != /proc/ That's not the only problem here, unfortunately. > I will finish all of this up shortly but do you know a good > way to do a union mount when we mount proc? Not transparently; mount(2) should _not_ mount two filesystems at once. Note that you'll run into serious problems as soon as you try to mount/umount/ mount --move the stuff there. And doing unionfs approach will cause fsckloads of fun issues with lifetimes.