-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67094/#review202969
-----------------------------------------------------------



Great to see the split of `fs::enter::prepare` from `fs::enter::chroot`. Let's 
make sure the parts dealing with `$rootfs/tmp` are symmetric within 
`fs::enter::chroot` first and I'm fine with the rest.

We could even consider moving some parts of `fs::enter::prepare` into 
`launch.cpp` after my chain gets merged into master.


src/linux/fs.cpp
Lines 940-966 (original), 940-966 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/67094/#comment285032>

    I would suggest that `fs::chroot::enter` starts here, as later in 
`fs::chroot::enter` we have `fs::umount("/tmp")`. We should consider making 
`fs::chroot::enter` symmetric when dealing with `$rootfs/tmp`, as well as 
making it an extended `pivot_root(2)` with no unnecessary preparations and 
cleanups.


- Jason Lai


On May 11, 2018, 6:31 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67094/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 11, 2018, 6:31 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Gilbert Song, Jason Lai, Jie Yu, and Zhitao Li.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-8792
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-8792
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Since we will need to perform additional work to configure
> the chroot before entering it, split the Linux chroot API
> into `fs::chroot::prepare()` and `fs::chroot::enter()`.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/linux/fs.hpp 76dc09c38996eefd8487ba6ef4977ef2f7c9df4c 
>   src/linux/fs.cpp fbd03b19abb9b56dbf3fb8a84d09a39171bbc1b0 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/launch.cpp 
> f25d90651ef32495c9161c3eaed8a327d1b2b926 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67094/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> manual
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to