> > > Why not "nosubmnt"? > > > > Why not indeed. Maybe I should try to use my brain sometime. > > Well it really should have 'user' or 'unpriv' in the name > somewhere. 'nosubmnt' is more confusing than 'nomnt' because > it no submounts really sounds like a reasonable thing in > itself... I slept on it, and I still think 'nosubmnt' might be the best compromise. Obviously the superuser has privileges, that override what is normally allowed, and we don't find it strange when a read-only file is happily being written by root. It may feel wrong in the context of mounts, because we are so used to mounts being privileged-only. Objections? Once this goes in, it will stay the same forever, so now is the time to express any doubts... Thanks, Miklos _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
