Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@xxxxxxxxxx): > > > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT? I claim no way will people keep those > > > > straight. How about MNT_ALLOWUSER and MNT_USER? > > > > > > Umm, is "allowuser" more clear than "usermnt"? What is allowed to the > > > > I think so, yes. One makes it clear that we're talking about allowing > > user (somethings :), one might just as well mean "this is a user mount." > > > > > user? "allowusermnt" may be more descriptive, but it's a bit too > > > long. > > > > Yes, if it weren't too long it would by far have been my preference. > > Maybe despite the length we should still go with it... > > > > > I don't think it matters all that much, the user will have to look up > > > the semantics in the manpage anyway. Is "nosuid" descriptive? Not > > > very much, but we got used to it. > > > > nosuid is quite clear. > > Is it? Shouldn't these be "allowsuid", "noallowsuid", "allowexec", > "noallowexec"? > > See, we mentally add the "allow" quite easily. But they aren't accompanied by a flag meaning "don't allow any non-nosuid mounts below this point". *That* is what causes the problem here. > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT are so confusing that in the time I go from > > quitting the manpage to foregrounding my editor, I may have already > > forgotten which was which. > > Well, to the user they are always in the form "user=123" and > "usermnt", so they are not as easy to confuse. It still makes the kernel code harder to read, but for the user yes that is helpful. > But I feel a bit stupid bickering about this, because it isn't so > important. "allowuser" or "allowusermnt" are fine by me if you think > they are substantially better than "usermnt". Thanks, I really really do :) -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
