On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 18:53 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:35:43PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 18:32 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 06:15:34PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:04 -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > > That implies to me you want to capture the value at mount time, and to > > > > > pass it in to the rpc_call creation, and only at very specific well > > > > > defined points where we interact with user space should we examine > > > > > current->utsname(). At which point there should be no question > > > > > of current->utsname() is valid as the user space process is alive. > > > > > > > > Why pretend that the filesystem is owned by a particular namespace? It > > > > can, and will be shared among many containers... > > > > > > If the only purpose of this is to fill in the auth_unix cred then > > > shouldn't it be part of whatever cred structures are passed around? > > > > So how does tracking it in a shared structure like the rpc_client help? > > If you consider it to be part of the cred, then it needs to be tracked > > in the cred... > > Right, that's what I meant. > > It seems like overkill, though. Does anyone actually care whether these > names are right? That's certainly a tempting angle. However we may not "control" the server code -- couldn't there be some oddball (maybe even proprietary) NFS servers out there that users do care about interacting with? Cheers, -Matt Helsley -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
