-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Al Viro wrote:
> OK, here comes the first draft of proposed semantics for subtree > sharing. What we want is being able to propagate events between > the parts of mount trees. Below is a description of what I think > might be a workable semantics; it does *NOT* describe the data > structures I would consider final and there are considerable > areas where we still need to figure out the right behaviour. > Okay, I'm not convinced that shared subtrees as proposed will work well with autofs. The idea discussed off-line was this: When you install an autofs mountpoint, on say /home, a daemon is started to service the requests. As far as the admin is concerned, an fs is mounted in the current namespace, call it namespaceA. The daemon actually runs in it's one private namespace: call it namespaceB. namespaceB receives a new autofs filesystem: call it autofsB. autofsB is in it's own p-node. namespaceA gets an autofsA on /home as well, and autofsA is 'owned' by autofsB's p-node. So: autofsB -> autofsB and autofsB -> autofsA Effectively, namespaceA has a private instance of autofsB in its tree. The problem is this: Assume /home/mikew is accessed in namespaceA. The daemon running in namespaceB gets the event, and mounts an nfs vfsmount on autofsB. This event is propagated back to autofsA. (Problem 1: how do you block access to /home/mikew in namespaceA?) Next, a CLONE_NS is done in namespaceA, creating namespaceA'. the homedir on /home/mikew is also copied. Now, in namespaceA', what happens when a user umount's /home/mikew? We haven't yet determined how to handle umount event propagation, but it appears likely that it will be *a hard thing to do*. Assuming the nfs umount succeeds, /home/mikew is accessed again in namespaceA'. (Problem 2: The daemon in namespaceB will see the event, but it already has something mounted on it's version of /home/mikew. How does it 'send' a mountpoint to namespaceB.) - ----------- Shared subtrees may help in some adminstrative situations, but don't look like the right solution for autofs. Autofs will work with namespaces if the following functionality is added to the kernel: The ability to perform mount(2) operations on a directory fd. This has been discussed before and quickly vetoed, citing that it is a security risk. I still fail to understand how allowing a mount to happen cross-namespace given a dirfd target is any worse than what is already possible given a dirfd. If you don't want someone to play with your namespace, don't give them a dirfd. Thoughts? - -- Mike Waychison Sun Microsystems, Inc. 1 (650) 352-5299 voice 1 (416) 202-8336 voice ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me, and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB+r1OdQs4kOxk3/MRAmSpAJ96ix25fjze6o7viCq2DCET9J/AlQCfYlC1 CoLKusJXjL+fYxgwggOCW+w= =8bTv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html