Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > The point of making it a bind is to address the concerns about > backwards compatibility in user space. In particular security > conscious applications and applications that perform sanity checks > are known to ignore things if they are the wrong type in the filesystem. > A.k.a. broken applications... >> This is *only* required to support back-and-forth, and can be introduced at any >> time after this patch is in the kernel -- or even before. > > You can use a file bind mount just as easily as a symlink. > > As for udev I haven't seen a version that is accessible to mere mortals yet > and it doesn't seem like they plan on it being so. Eventually I will get > around to making sense of it as we need to make it work in a container > but so far it seems to be much more complex then it should be. I have not had that experience... I find it relatively simple to deal with. The biggest problem is the fact that the rules aren't bundled with the kernel, which causes nasty chicken and egg problems. -hpa _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
