-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/67098/#review202977
-----------------------------------------------------------



high level comments: should we just create `<rootfs>/dev` in the linux devices 
isolator "prepare" phase? The linux devices isolator should also prepare those 
standard devices. Logically, this makes sense because `/dev` should just be 
owned by linux devices isolator?


src/slave/containerizer/mesos/launch.cpp
Lines 399-410 (patched)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/67098/#comment285039>

    + @jasonlai
    
    This might be related to your chain. Please let us know what's the best way 
forward to best aligh with your goal.


- Jie Yu


On May 11, 2018, 6:32 p.m., James Peach wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/67098/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 11, 2018, 6:32 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
> -------
> 
> The `linux/devices` isolator needs to make bind mounts into
> the `/dev` directory of the container. However, the container
> mounts are made before the container `/dev` is mounted as part
> of the chroot preparation. We need to prepare the chroot,
> then make any necessary container mounts, and finally enter
> the chroot. This sequence of operations also requires us to
> touch the target mount point, since we can't do it from the
> isolator because the '/dev' directory doesn't exist yet.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/launch.cpp 
> f25d90651ef32495c9161c3eaed8a327d1b2b926 
> 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/67098/diff/1/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> manual
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Peach
> 
>

Reply via email to