Alan Cox wrote: >> auto-created, than supporting mknod(2) inside the devpts filesystem. >> It's not a matter of "changing the user space"; it's a matter of what >> makes most sense inside the kernel. > > Having an extra node with different permissions suddenely appear without > warning isn't I think good behaviour. Hm. Given that the single-instance mode is the backwards compatibility mode (and it's accessible from outside the filesystem), it probably makes sense to suppress creating this device node when *not* applying the "newns" option, or whatever we want to call it. > I'm open to being convinced and the > other problems with that code are more pressing. Agreed. -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
