Hello, Eric. Tejun Heo wrote: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Further while there are a few little nits I think mostly Tejun is >> mostly objecting to the fundamental complexity of the problem rather >> then to things that can be fixed by a cleaner implementation. > > Oh well, I don't think so but I might be wrong. And I'm wrong. Mine didn't turn out to be much cleaner than yours. What I did was (still broken)... * No shadower/shadowee. Each dentry is tagged. * dentries of tagged sd's are taken out of dcache and always go through ->lookup() where the correct sd is looked up considering the current tag. Tagging and adding new entries could be done rather cleanly but shooting down existing dentries on rename/move turned out to be a mess. Things will be much simpler if no sysfs dentry is hashed on dcache and always go through ->lookup() but that will hurt big machines. The basic problem here is that dcache layer doesn't allow different views and sysfs shadow is trying to work behind its back. I don't think this is a viable approach. Both implementations bend too many rules and are too fragile. It will be a genuine pain in the ass to maintain. Sorry that I can't come up with an alternative but NACK. -- tejun _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers