> > Thinking a bit more about this, I'm quite sure most users wouldn't > > even want private namespaces. It would be enough to > > > > chroot /share/$USER > > > > and be done with it. > > > > Private namespaces are only good for keeping a bunch of mounts > > referenced by a group of processes. But my guess is, that the natural > > behavior for users is to see a persistent set of mounts. > > > > If for example they mount something on a remote machine, then log out > > from the ssh session and later log back in, they would want to see > > their previous mount still there. > > > > Miklos > > Agreed on desired behavior, but not on chroot sufficing. It actually > sounds like you want exactly what was outlined in the OLS paper. > > Users still need to be in a different mounts namespace from the admin > user so long as we consider the deluser and backup problems I don't think it matters, because /share/$USER duplicates a part or the whole of the user's namespace. So backup would have to be taught about /share anyway, and deluser operates on /home/$USER and not on /share/*, so there shouldn't be any problem. There's actually very little difference between rbind+chroot, and CLONE_NEWNS. In a private namespace: 1) when no more processes reference the namespace, the tree will be disbanded 2) the mount tree won't be accessible from outside the namespace Wanting a persistent namespace contradicts 1). Wanting a per-user (as opposed to per-session) namespace contradicts 2). The namespace _has_ to be accessible from outside, so that a new session can access/copy it. So both requirements point to the rbind/chroot solution. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html