On Friday 05 April 2013 18:42:20 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:27, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
On Friday 05 April 2013 18:23:35 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk)
wrote:
Hmm, does this
On Mon, 08.04.13 14:08, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
Well, but in your example you unmounted a bind mount with a child, and
that resulted in the unmounting of the child in the source mount, too --
even though you never asked for that child mount to be unmounted.
On Monday 08 April 2013 15:57:10 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 08.04.13 14:08, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
I am not sure, depends if you think the behaviour is correct or not.
Either
way, I would say that the systemd change to make root rshared by default
was a
On Tue, 02.04.13 10:27, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
You need to try it since you don't seem to believe me. :)
+ M1=testmp1
+ M2=testmp2
+ SM=submount
+ mkdir -p testmp1
+ mkdir -p testmp2
+ mount none -t tmpfs testmp1
+ mkdir -p testmp1/submount
+ mount none -t
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
Hmm, does this always happen this way, or is the MS_REC flag sticky
and causes the MNT_DETACH to be recursive?
That looks a bit like a kernel misfeature, no?
To me it looks like the kernel is working as
On Friday 05 April 2013 18:23:35 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
Hmm, does this always happen this way, or is the MS_REC flag sticky
and causes the MNT_DETACH to be recursive?
That looks a bit like a kernel
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:27, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
On Friday 05 April 2013 18:23:35 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
Hmm, does this always happen this way, or is the MS_REC flag sticky
and
Hi,
On Friday 29 March 2013 15:56:01 Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 28.03.13 16:47, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
Hi all,
As a bit of a feedback, the change in systemd to mark root fs as
recursively shared by default has the potential to bite hard anyone who
On Thu, 28.03.13 16:47, Tvrtko Ursulin (tvrtko.ursu...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
Hi all,
As a bit of a feedback, the change in systemd to mark root fs as recursively
shared by default has the potential to bite hard anyone who builds chroot-ed
environments on their system.
When you build
Hi all,
As a bit of a feedback, the change in systemd to mark root fs as recursively
shared by default has the potential to bite hard anyone who builds chroot-ed
environments on their system.
When you build your chroot fs and then bind mount bits of the outside world
into it, you are up for
10 matches
Mail list logo