-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#review93457
-----------------------------------------------------------



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (line 238)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147836>

    why MS_SHARED (bidirectional) vs MS_SLAVE (one-way)?
    
    MS_SLAVE would probably give better isolation to the host mount-ns.
    
    MS_SHARED would probably be better for a use case that I have in mind 
(doc'd in MESOS-349), especially since cleanup() here does GC on mount points 
that are children of the sandbox.


- James DeFelice


On July 12, 2015, 4:46 a.m., Ian Downes wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 12, 2015, 4:46 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Timothy Chen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Moved filesystem/linux from review https://reviews.apache.org/r/34135/
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am e5b5d36f0ac160e5a3a9fdc50b31c060a413ce2c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> 47d146125dfd4ea909e7ec9d94f41cfa11d035e5 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Downes
> 
>

Reply via email to