Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs
From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 - 12:58:55 EST
Mike Waychison wrote:
This is clearly not 'all of userspace'. Autofs is an exception. As is
/etc/mtab. The way I see it, automounting is a 'mount facility', as are
namespaces. The two should be made to work together. Yes, mount(8)
should probably be fixed one way or another as well due to /etc/mtab
breakage. Why? Because it too is a mount facility.
There are a couple problems inherent with namespaces. Most of these are
mount facilities that are broken such as mentioned above. They *should*
be fixed to work nicely.
For that one needs to know how the namespaces are used, not just how
they are implemented. There was a long discussion on this on #kernel
yesterday, by the way.
Other parts of userspace get confused with namespaces, eg: cron and atd.
These programs clearly need infrastructure added that somehow allows
for arbitrary namespace joining/saving. If you have suggestions for how
we can solve this issue, please do let me know. I'm stumped :\ I'd be
more than happy to discuss this with you.
Do they? In order for that to be a "clearly", I believe one needs to
understand how namespaces are used in practice. It may not be desirable
or even possible; this starts getting into a policy decision.
One not-so-far fetched approach would be to associate cron/at jobs with
automount configurations so that a namespace can be re-constructed at
runtime.
I am not entirely sure what you mean with this, but it sounds incredibly
dangerous to me.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/