Alan Cox wrote:
>> auto-created, than supporting mknod(2) inside the devpts filesystem.
>> It's not a matter of "changing the user space"; it's a matter of what
>> makes most sense inside the kernel.
>
> Having an extra node with different permissions suddenely appear without
> warning isn't I think good behaviour.
Hm. Given that the single-instance mode is the backwards compatibility
mode (and it's accessible from outside the filesystem), it probably
makes sense to suppress creating this device node when *not* applying
the "newns" option, or whatever we want to call it.
> I'm open to being convinced and the
> other problems with that code are more pressing.
Agreed.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
