On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 17:42 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:58 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > So should we use patch 2/4, plus (as someone - was it you? - suggested) > > using a DEFAULT instead of init_utsname()->nodename when > > current->utsname() == NULL? > > No. I'm don't think that 2/4 is correct either. Basically, 2/4 is saying > that the container that first mounts the filesystem 'owns' it. However > at the same time we know that the lifetime of the filesystem is in no > way bounded by the lifetime of the container, and that's what gets you > into trouble with 'umount' in the first place. > > IMO, the current code is the most correct approach, in that it assumes > that the filesystems are owned by the 'init' namespace. IMHO This seems more incorrect than trying to use a more proximal namespace. Cheers, -Matt Helsley _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
