Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com): > On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 13:34 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > Quoting C Anthony Risinger (anth...@xtfx.me): > > > there it would seem. however, while i could *maybe* see the rootfs > > > being an unconditional slave, i would NOT want to see any lxc > > > default/enforcement preventing container -> host propagation on a > > > globally recursive scale. im of the opinion that the implementor > > > should decide the best tactic ... especially in light of the fact the > > > one distro may not even have the same problems as say > > > ubutnu/fedora/etc because they keep mount points private by default. > > > Good point. (I don't see it on ubuntu either fwiw) Perhaps there > > should be a toggle in the per-container config file? > > Quick question. > > Is there any way to test for these flags (SHARED, PRIVATE, SLAVE)? I > don't see them showing up anywhere from mount, in proc mounts or > mountstats. How do you check to see if they are set?
/proc/self/mountinfo is supposed to tell that. i.e. if you do a --make-shared on /mnt, it'll show 'shared' next to the /mnt entry. (I say 'is supposed to' bc --make-rslave just shows nothing, but maybe that's bc the way i did it it wasn't a slave to anything, so it was actually private) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51385063/ _______________________________________________ Lxc-users mailing list Lxc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lxc-users
