From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933118Ab3BNJKM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:10:12 -0500 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:34775 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756496Ab3BNJKK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2013 04:10:10 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Linux Containers , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" , Mark Fasheh References: <87621w14vs.fsf@xmission.com> <1360777934-5663-1-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <1360777934-5663-23-git-send-email-ebiederm@xmission.com> <20130214083547.GE18408@localhost> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:10:01 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20130214083547.GE18408@localhost> (Joel Becker's message of "Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:35:48 -0800") Message-ID: <877gmbdzx2.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1/s7OwQsIH2nJxlyBS6XAUHIIezjFmJyl4= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 98.207.153.68 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 3.0 XMDrug1234561 Drug references * 0.1 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0017] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org X-Spam-Relay-Country: Subject: Re: [PATCH review 23/85] ocfs2: Convert uid and gids between in core and on disk inodes X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:46 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joel Becker writes: > This has the same problem with two machines in different userspace > namespaces. Should this be punted to the sysadmin or helped out in the > filesystem? Do you define this case as unsupported? First I define two machines in the same user namespace as two machines with synchronized password files. As today connecting two machines without synchronizing the password entries is a problem, won't work, and is punted to the sysadmin to make keep from doing something silly. At the same time I don't want to make it easy to get confused, or cause breakage. With these patches ocfs2 only still only works in the initial user namespace. I don't set .fs_flags = FS_USERNS_MOUNT in struct filesystem. Which means that while users in other user namespaces can store files on ocfs2, they can't mount ocfs2. Eric