From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40005 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752261AbbCWJVh (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Mar 2015 05:21:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:21:35 +0100 From: Karel Zak To: "Eric W. Biederman" Cc: util-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: unshare(1) --propagation Message-ID: <20150323092135.GC1749@ws.net.home> References: <20150318172603.GE28925@ws.net.home> <87y4moam1e.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <87y4moam1e.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 02:07:25PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > It might surprise a few folks that > "--propagation shared" and "--propagation off" are do not do > the same thing.. But otherwise as far as functionality this looks > fine. > > I will suggest instead of calling it "--propagation off" you > call it "--propagation unchanged". Good idea, changed. > I also think --propagation private is much less likely to burn folks. > > Of course the flip side is that as soon as they finish prototyping and > start putting their logic in an application they will get burned. But > there is only so much a person can do. And "--propagation private" is > a common enough desire I think it makes sense. Especially since > "--propagation private" is what any sane person will expect to happen. Yep, thanks for review. Karel -- Karel Zak http://karelzak.blogspot.com