Al Viro <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 06:04:36PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> There are some other similar problems still in /proc.
>>
>> In my pid namespace work I have some managed to clean most of
>> this up, and finally split proc into two filesystems.
>>
>> The only was I was able to get the union to work was
>> to let lookup return files in an internal mount.
>>
>> The only problem was that /proc/irq/.. != /proc/
>
> That's not the only problem here, unfortunately.
Well at the moment it seems to be. Basically a case of everything
seems to work but the semantics are weird and ugly, and not worth
doing if the legacy semantics are not maintained.
>> I will finish all of this up shortly but do you know a good
>> way to do a union mount when we mount proc?
>
> Not transparently; mount(2) should _not_ mount two filesystems at once.
> Note that you'll run into serious problems as soon as you try to mount/umount/
> mount --move the stuff there. And doing unionfs <spit> approach will cause
> fsckloads of fun issues with lifetimes.
:)
Do you know if there is anything in what autofs does for mounts that
could be reused.
To a certain extent it would work find if I had a mount point and
all of the legacy directories were symlinks to it.
Anyway there are lots of possibilities and I will work something
out before it makes into the stable kernel.
I keep having the feeling that I might just wind up with everything
making sense under proc as I create more namespaces :)
Eric
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
