> > > Don't forget that almost all mount flags are per-superblock. How are you > > > planning on dealing with the case that one user mounts a filesystem > > > read-only, while another is trying to mount the same one read-write? > > > > Yeah, I forgot, the per-mount read-only patches are not yet in. > > > > That doesn't really change my agrument though. _If_ the flag is per > > mount, then it makes sense to be able to change it on a master and not > > on a slave. If mount flags are propagated, this is not possible. > > Read-only isn't the only issue. On something like NFS, there are flags > to set the security flavour, turn on/off encryption etc. > > If I mount your home directory using no encryption in my namespace, for > instance, then neither you nor the administrator will be able to turn it > on afterwards in yours without first unmounting it from mine so that the > superblock is destroyed. OK, that's interesting, but I fail to grasp the relevance of this to unprivileged mounts. Or are you thinking of unprivileged NFS mounts? Well, think again, because that involves _much_ more than it seems at first glance. Miklos _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
