On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The "flags" argument could be the same as for regular mount, and > > contain the mnt_flags - so the extra argument could maybe usefully be > > a "mnt_flags_mask", to indicate which flags we actually care about > > overriding. > > The way I imagined it, is that mnt_flags is a mask, and the operation > (determined by flags) is either: > > - set bits in mask > - clear bits in mask (or not in mask) > - set flags to mask > > It doesn't allow setting some bits, clearing some others, and leaving > alone the rest. But I think such flexibility isn't really needed.
I think I'd suggest something like: new_mnt->mnt_flags = (old_mnt->mnt_flags & ~arg_mask) | (arg_flags & mask) > Maybe instead of messing with masks, it's better to introduce a > get_flags() or a more general mount_stat() operation, and let > userspace deal with setting and clearing flags, just as we do for > stat/chmod? > > So we'd have > > mount_stat(path, stat); > mount_bind(from, to, flags); > mount_set_flags(path, flags); > mount_move(from, to); > > and perhaps > > mount_remount(path, opt_string, flags); Sounds reasonable to me. But it wouldn't directly solve the "do a recursive bind mount setting the MS_READONLY flag on all children" problem, so we'd need some of the earlier suggestions too. Paul -- 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/
