On Jan 6, 2009, at Jan 6, 2009, 6:35 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 18:32 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:15:34PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>> On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:04 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> That implies to me you want to capture the value at mount time, >>>> and to >>>> pass it in to the rpc_call creation, and only at very specific well >>>> defined points where we interact with user space should we examine >>>> current->utsname(). At which point there should be no question >>>> of current->utsname() is valid as the user space process is alive. >>> >>> Why pretend that the filesystem is owned by a particular >>> namespace? It >>> can, and will be shared among many containers... >> >> If the only purpose of this is to fill in the auth_unix cred then >> shouldn't it be part of whatever cred structures are passed around? > > So how does tracking it in a shared structure like the rpc_client > help? > If you consider it to be part of the cred, then it needs to be tracked > in the cred... I think generating a proper AUTH_SYS cred, given the existence of containers, is the essential question here. However, we use nodename for lock owners too... perhaps that deserves a separate solution. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers