Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx): > On 05/12/2012 12:54 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > setns support for the mount namespace is a little tricky as an arbitrary > > decision must be made about what to set fs->root and fs->pwd to, as > > there is no expectation of a relationship between the two mount > > namespaces. Therefore I arbitrarily find the root mount point, and > > follow every mount on top of it to find the top of the mount stack. > > Then I set fs->root and fs->pwd to that location. The topmost root of > > the mount stack seems like a reasonable place to be. > > > > Bind mount support for the mount namespace inodes has the possibility of > > creating circular dependencies between mount namespaces. Circular > > dependencies can result in loops that prevent mount namespaces from > > every being freed. I avoid creating those circular dependencies by > > adding a sequence number to the mount namespace and require all bind > > mounts be of a younger mount namespace into an older mount namespace. > > > > Add a helper function proc_ns_inode so it is possible to detect when we > > are attempting to bind mound a namespace inode. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> These patches haven't made it into linux-next or Linus' tree. (More worrisome, is that the several online linux-kernel mail archives I've checked seem to have most of this thread, but not Eric's original patch.) What path were they expected to go in by? thanks, -serge -- 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
