On Mon, 2007-04-16 at 11:32 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > Given the existence of shared subtrees allowing/denying this at the > > > mount > > > namespace level is silly and wrong. > > > > > > If we need more than just the filesystem permission checks can we > > > make it a mount flag settable with mount and remount that allows > > > non-privileged users the ability to create mount points under it > > > in directories they have full read/write access to. > > > > Also for bind-mount and remount operations the flag has to be propagated > > down its propagation tree. Otherwise a unpriviledged mount in a shared > > mount wont get reflected in its peers and slaves, leading to unidentical > > shared-subtrees. > > That's an interesting question. Do we want shared mounts to be > totally identical, including mnt_flags? It doesn't look as if > do_remount() guarantees that currently.
Depends on the semantics of each of the flags. Some flags like of the read/write flag, would not interfere with the propagation semantics AFAICT. But this one certainly seems to interfere. RP > 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/
