Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 17:19 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > No. There's a change there, all right, and thank you for reminding me
> > > of that, but (afaik) it's NOT in the kernel itself. It'
Quoting Christian Seiler (christ...@iwakd.de):
> Hi there,
>
> > No. There's a change there, all right, and thank you for reminding
> > me
> > of that, but (afaik) it's NOT in the kernel itself. It's a mount
> > option. It's that bloody MS_SHARED option and, to a lessor extent,
> > MS_SLAVE op
Hi there,
> No. There's a change there, all right, and thank you for reminding
> me
> of that, but (afaik) it's NOT in the kernel itself. It's a mount
> option. It's that bloody MS_SHARED option and, to a lessor extent,
> MS_SLAVE option that are behind how those things are propagated.
> MS_SH
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 17:19 -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > No. There's a change there, all right, and thank you for reminding me
> > of that, but (afaik) it's NOT in the kernel itself. It's a mount
> > option. It's that bloody MS_SHARED option
Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> No. There's a change there, all right, and thank you for reminding me
> of that, but (afaik) it's NOT in the kernel itself. It's a mount
> option. It's that bloody MS_SHARED option and, to a lessor extent,
There *is* a kernel change which dhans
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 21:51 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> >> Yep, we discussed this at Plumbers and I think it's really the way
> >> to
> >> go, basically remove all of that fs pinning code and just do a
> >> bind-mount of the rootfs on itself in the container's mountns before
>
Quoting Christian Seiler (christ...@iwakd.de):
> Hi there,
>
> >> Yep, we discussed this at Plumbers and I think it's really the way
> >> to
> >> go, basically remove all of that fs pinning code and just do a
> >> bind-mount of the rootfs on itself in the container's mountns before
> >> starting
Hi there,
>> Yep, we discussed this at Plumbers and I think it's really the way
>> to
>> go, basically remove all of that fs pinning code and just do a
>> bind-mount of the rootfs on itself in the container's mountns before
>> starting it.
>
>> That way if the container decideds to remount / ro a
On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 10:45 -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:41:04AM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> > > On 09/23/2013 11:19:17 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > > >Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> > > >> On 09/12/2013 01:27:07
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 09:41:04AM -0500, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> > On 09/23/2013 11:19:17 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> > >Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> > >> On 09/12/2013 01:27:07 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > >> > Hi there,
> > >> >
> > >> > just
Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> On 09/23/2013 11:19:17 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> >Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> >> On 09/12/2013 01:27:07 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> >> > Hi there,
> >> >
> >> > just a quick question: currently, rootfs is pinned with a
> >.hold file
> >> > i
On 09/23/2013 11:19:17 AM, Serge Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> > On 09/12/2013 01:27:07 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > just a quick question: currently, rootfs is pinned with a .hold
> file
> > > in
> > > the parent directory (which btw. does n
Quoting Rob Landley (r...@landley.net):
> On 09/12/2013 01:27:07 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > just a quick question: currently, rootfs is pinned with a .hold file
> > in
> > the parent directory (which btw. does not help against file systems
> > that
> > are already mounte
On 09/12/2013 01:27:07 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> just a quick question: currently, rootfs is pinned with a .hold file
> in
> the parent directory (which btw. does not help against file systems
> that
> are already mounted on the host but directly in the rootfs directory).
> T
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 08:27:07PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> just a quick question: currently, rootfs is pinned with a .hold file in
> the parent directory (which btw. does not help against file systems that
> are already mounted on the host but directly in the rootfs director
Quoting Christian Seiler (christ...@iwakd.de):
> Hi there,
>
> just a quick question: currently, rootfs is pinned with a .hold file in
> the parent directory (which btw. does not help against file systems that
> are already mounted on the host but directly in the rootfs directory).
> The problem w
16 matches
Mail list logo
