On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 04:45:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > As far as I know, shared subtrees in recursive bind mounts are a > misfeature that existed for the sole purpose of allowing recursive > binds + chroot to emulate mount namespaces.
Wrong. Different namespaces vs. multiple mounts in the same namespace have nothing whatsoever with shared vs. slave. It's completely orthogonal. > But we have mount > namespaces, so what are they for? ??? > They're totally fsked up. For example, don't try this on a live system: > > # mount --make-rshared / > # mount --rbind / /mnt > # umount -l /mnt > > It will unmount *everything*. So will umount -l / > On Fedora, you don't even need the > --make-rshared part. WTF? "Doctor, it hurts when I do it..." I can suggest a few more self-LARTs, if you are interested... > Can we just remove the feature entirely in linux-next and see if > anyone complains? I'm all for propagation across mount namespaces, > but I suspect that, at the very least, there is no legitimate reason > whatsoever for mounts to propagate from a recursive bind mount back to > the origin. > > IOW, can we kill shared mounts and just keep private and slave mounts? What for? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
