Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serge@xxxxxxxxxx): > Quoting Gao feng (gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx): > > On 11/18/2013 11:19 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > Quoting Serge E. Hallyn (serge@xxxxxxxxxx): > > >> Low on power and no charger, but a quick test printing out if a mount is > > >> !S_ISDIR or has nlink !=2 in fs_fully_visible() gives me: > > >> > > >> [ 92.939650] nlink is 1 for ino 8733 (0:3) > > >> > > >> (that's major 0 minor 3) > > > > > > Ok, so that is for binfmt_misc on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc. The > > > underlying directory is empty, and nlink is showing up as 1. > > > > > > Can we just get the nlink check changed to check for < 3 instead > > > of ==2 ? > > > > > > > I already reported this problem to Eric,hi is working on fix this problem. > > > > nlink is not the right thing to check if a directory is null. since > > in all of filesystems, parent dir's nlink is increase only when we > > create sub-dir. > > This whole thing feels very brittle. May I also point out that simply > setting perms appears to work just fine instead of overmounting. If I > chmod 700 /proc/swaps, unshare my pid and mount namespaces and remount > /proc, then /proc/swaps is 700 in the new mount. Since our concern is > with a new user namespace, which will be limited to world perms, this > should suffice and allow us to skip all this nonsense. > > Eric? > > -serge So yeah, I think this patch should be reverted, rather than "fixed". -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
