Re: Removing shared subtrees?
From: Al Viro
Date: Mon Sep 29 2014 - 20:10:00 EST
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 04:45:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> As far as I know, shared subtrees in recursive bind mounts are a
> misfeature that existed for the sole purpose of allowing recursive
> binds + chroot to emulate mount namespaces.
Wrong. Different namespaces vs. multiple mounts in the same namespace
have nothing whatsoever with shared vs. slave. It's completely orthogonal.
> But we have mount
> namespaces, so what are they for?
> They're totally fsked up. For example, don't try this on a live system:
> # mount --make-rshared /
> # mount --rbind / /mnt
> # umount -l /mnt
> It will unmount *everything*.
So will umount -l /
> On Fedora, you don't even need the
> --make-rshared part. WTF?
"Doctor, it hurts when I do it..."
I can suggest a few more self-LARTs, if you are interested...
> Can we just remove the feature entirely in linux-next and see if
> anyone complains? I'm all for propagation across mount namespaces,
> but I suspect that, at the very least, there is no legitimate reason
> whatsoever for mounts to propagate from a recursive bind mount back to
> the origin.
> IOW, can we kill shared mounts and just keep private and slave mounts?
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/