On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 04:08:50PM -0800, Matt Helsley wrote: > 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. If it would be possible, for example, for the 'init' namespace to have no network interfaces at all, then it would be nicer to use a name that's at least been used with nfs at *some* point--just on the general principle of not leaking information to a domain that the user wouldn't expect it to. (Assuming it's unlikely anyone would consider init's utsname to be sensitive information, that's a minor point.) --b. -- 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
