Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> writes: > On Sat, 2012-11-24 at 10:23 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 15:30 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> > Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> writes: >> > >> > > On Fri, 2012-11-23 at 11:45 +0800, Ian Kent wrote: >> > >> On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 17:24 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> > >> > Patches were tested by the customer. >> > >> > >> > >> > Ian, Eric, do these patches look OK?
My apologies for the delay. I have been swamped with the holidays and the impending 3.8 merge window. I will take a good hard look at your patches shortly. >> AFAICS autofs mounts mounted with MS_PRIVATE in the initial namespace do >> propagate to the clone when it's created so I'm assuming subsequent >> mounts would also. If these mounts are busy in some way they can't be >> umounted in the clone unless "/" is marked private before attempting the >> umount. > > This may sound stupid but if there something like, say, MS_NOPROPAGATE > then the problem I see would pretty much just go away. No more need to > umount existing mounts and container instances would be isolated. But, I > guess, I'm not considering the possibility of cloned of processes as > well .... if that makes sense, ;) Something is very weird is going on. MS_PRIVATE should be the MS_NOPROPOGATE you are looking for. There is also MS_UNBINDABLE. which is a stronger form of MS_PRIVATE and probably worth play with. I would love to advertise my user namespace changes (queued for 3.8) that reduce shared subtrees to slave subtress as the solution to this, and that does address part of the issue but that does not really seem like the fix. I expect what we need to avoid unwanted mount propagation is an idiom something like: unshare -n mount --private /mnt pivot_root /mnt / umount /mnt Something like that is present in the startup of most containers already. So figuring out where to sprinkle MS_PRIVATE or MS_UNBINDABLE so that mounts don't propogate that we want to propogate look like a good deal. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
