On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 02:21 +, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > > But... I got this for the root system on Alcove.
> > > >
> > > > 106 55 8:17 /lxc/private/Alcove / rw,relatime master:1 - ext4 /dev/sdb1
> > > > rw,barrier=1,data=ordered
> > > >
Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > But... I got this for the root system on Alcove.
> > >
> > > 106 55 8:17 /lxc/private/Alcove / rw,relatime master:1 - ext4 /dev/sdb1
> > > rw,barrier=1,data=ordered
> > >
> > > Ok... That now says "master:1". Not sure what it signifies...
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 17:28 -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Michael H. Warfield
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:32 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> >> > On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 13:34 -0500, Serge E. Hall
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:32 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> 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):
>> > > > t
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:32 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 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 rootf
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 16:50 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:32 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > 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):
> >
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 15:32 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> 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 rootf
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 l
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 14:51 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 12:59 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > > I think the problem is that you are only doing this on the root
Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 12:59 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > I think the problem is that you are only doing this on the rootfs and
> > > that flag does not automagically propagate to the subm
Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 12:59 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > I think the problem is that you are only doing this on the rootfs and
> > > that flag does not automagically propagate to the subm
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 p
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 p
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
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 12:59 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > I think the problem is that you are only doing this on the rootfs and
> > that flag does not automagically propagate to the submounts. That's
> D'oh! Yeah, what you want is MS_REC |
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting C Anthony Risinger (anth...@xtfx.me):
>> On Jul 15, 2011 12:01 PM, "Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, I also still find that if there's a -o remount,ro in the
>> > halt/reboot script, it still sets /dev/pts to ro
Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> I think the problem is that you are only doing this on the rootfs and
> that flag does not automagically propagate to the submounts. That's
D'oh! Yeah, what you want is MS_REC | MS_SLAVE. The rest should be fine
as I had it?
--
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 07:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > Unfortunately, I also still find that if there's a -o remount,ro in the
> > halt/reboot script, it still sets /dev/pts to ro and that still
> > propagates to the host and to the other c
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 09:55 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 07:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > Unfortunately, I also still find that if there's a -o remount,ro in the
> > > halt/reboot script, it still sets /dev
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 07:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > Unfortunately, I also still find that if there's a -o remount,ro in the
> > halt/reboot script, it still sets /dev/pts to ro and that still
> > propagates to the host and to the other c
Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 07:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Quoting Michael H. Warfield (m...@wittsend.com):
> > > Unfortunately, I also still find that if there's a -o remount,ro in the
> > > halt/reboot script, it still sets /dev/pts to ro and
21 matches
Mail list logo
