Quoting Chuck Lever (chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx): > On Jan 6, 2009, at Jan 6, 2009, 3:02 PM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> Quoting Matt Helsley (matthltc@xxxxxxxxxx): >>> We can often specify the UTS namespace to use when starting an RPC >>> client. >>> However sometimes no UTS namespace is available (specifically during >>> system >>> shutdown as the last NFS mount in a container is unmounted) so fall >>> back to the initial UTS namespace. >> >> So what happens if we take this patch and do nothing else? > > I thought the point of this was to prevent incorrect container nodenames > from leaking onto the network. But define incorrect. If container B does an nfs mount, container c is launched with a tree in that mount, container B dies, and container C umounts it. Should the umount belong to container B (for having mounted it), container C (for having umount it), or the init_utsname (for being the physical host/kernel)? I get the feeling that consensus on this thread is that init_utsname is actually the best choice, but OTOH if I have 3 containers on my host, for apache, mysql, and postfix servers, and each is doing nfs mounts from a physically remote machine, maybe I care about having them report separate nodenames? (that's a question, I really don't know...) -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
