-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#review93143
-----------------------------------------------------------


Please do a rebase first since quite a lot of the stuff have been changed.

Also, there's no test yet. Do you have tests in a subsequent patch? I think we 
might need a TestProvisioner that's based on copying the host file systems so 
that we can test the file system isolators. We can unify this with the 
`BasicLinuxChroot` in launch_tests.cpp. What do you think?


src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (lines 130 - 148)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147478>

    Can you elaborate in the comment about why this is needed? I don't follow 
this part.
    
    Also, I am wondering what if 'directory' itself contains symbolic links? 
For example, 'directory=/var/lib/mesos/...' and '/var' is a symbolic link to 
'/xxx/var'.
    
    Is that a real issue observerd? Or we can drop a TODO instead for now?



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (line 165)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147479>

    s/!rootfs.isSome()/rootfs.isNone()



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (lines 176 - 195)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147523>

    Again, this part is not quite obvious to me. Can you explain why this is 
needed?



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (line 185)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147524>

    Failed to create 'container_path'?



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (line 188)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147525>

    What if 'rootfs' itself has symbolic links? Do we have code to guarantee 
that it won't be the case?



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (line 214)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147427>

    Can you print the container type if this check fails:
    ```
    CHECK(...)
      << "Unexpected container type " << ...
    ```



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (lines 320 - 323)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147454>

    You may want to check if some volumes already exist before mounting them 
because of the same reason you mentioned here.



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (lines 373 - 374)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147405>

    The logic here needs to be adjusted. Please refer to
    https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3124
    https://reviews.apache.org/r/36684



src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (line 428)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147449>

    I still don't get this part. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    Say the sandbox in the host file system (i.e., `info->directory`) is 
`DIRECTORY`.
    
    Persistent volumes are mounted at `$DIRECTORY/volume1`, 
`$DIRECTORY/volume2`, right?
    
    Those volumes's target does not meet `strings::startsWith(entry->target, 
info->rootfs.get()`, right?
    
    Also, if `info->rootfs.isNone()`, do you also need to cleanup persistent 
volume mounts?


- Jie Yu


On July 12, 2015, 4:46 a.m., Ian Downes wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 12, 2015, 4:46 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Timothy Chen, and Vinod Kone.
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Moved filesystem/linux from review https://reviews.apache.org/r/34135/
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/Makefile.am e5b5d36f0ac160e5a3a9fdc50b31c060a413ce2c 
>   src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.hpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp PRE-CREATION 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 
> 47d146125dfd4ea909e7ec9d94f41cfa11d035e5 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ian Downes
> 
>

Reply via email to