Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] share/private/slave a subtree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> The reason why I implemented that way, is to less confuse the user and
> provide more flexibility. With my implementation, we have the ability
> to share any part of the tree, without bothering if it is a mountpoint
> or not. The side effect of this operation is, it ends up creating 
> a vfsmount if the dentry is not a mountpoint.
> 
> so when a user says
>       mount --make-shared /tmp/abc
> the tree under /tmp/abc becomes shared. 
> With your suggestion either the user will get -EINVAL or the tree
> under / will become shared. The second behavior will be really
> confusing.

You are right.

> I am ok with -EINVAL. 

I think it should be this then.  These operations are similar to a
remount (they don't actually mount something, just change some
property of a mount).  Remount returns -EINVAL if not performed on the
root of a mount.

> Also there is another reason why I used this behavior. Lets say /mnt
> is a mountpoint and Say a user does
> 		mount make-shared /mnt 
> 
> and then does 
>                 mount --bind /mnt/abc  /mnt1
> 
> NOTE: we need propogation to be set up between /mnt/abc and /mnt1 and
> propogation can only be set up for vfsmounts.  In this case /mnt/abc 
> is not a mountpoint. I have two choices, either return -EINVAL
> or create a vfsmount at that point. But -EINVAL is not consistent
> with standard --bind behavior. So I chose the later behavior.
> 
> Now that we anyway need this behavior while doing bind mounts from
> shared trees, I kept the same behavior for --make-shared.

Well, the mount program can easily implement this behavior if wanted,
just by doing the 'bind dir dir' and then doing 'make-shared dir'.

The other way round (disabling the automatic 'bind dir dir') is much
more difficult.

> > Some notes (maybe outside the code) explaining the mechanism of the
> > propagations would be nice.  Without these it's hard to understand the
> > design decisions behind such an implementation.
> 
> Ok. I will make a small writeup on the mechanism.

That will help, thanks.

Miklos



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux