On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:29:13AM -0800, Ram Pai wrote: > I wonder, what is wrong in reporting mounts in other namespaces that > either receive and send propagation to mounts in our namespace?
A plenty. E.g. if foo trusts control over /var/blah to bar, it's not obvious that foo has any business knowing if bar gets it from somebody else in turn. And I'm not sure that bar has any business knowing that foo has the damn thing attached in five places instead of just one, let alone _where_ it has been attached. If you get down to it, the thing is about delegating control over part of namespace to somebody, without letting them control, see, etc. the rest of it. So I'd rather be very conservative about extra information we allow to piggyback on that. I don't know... perhaps with stable peer group IDs it would be OK to show peer group ID by (our) vfsmount + peer group ID of master + peer group ID of nearest dominating group that has intersection with our namespace. Then we don't leak information (AFAICS), get full propagation information between our vfsmounts and cooperating tasks in different namespaces can figure the things out as much as possible without leaking 3rd-party information to either. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
