On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 12:04:02PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 02.10.14 09:57, Michal Sekletar (msekl...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > #define FINALIZE_ATTEMPTS 50 > > > > @@ -207,7 +208,11 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { > > > > in_container = detect_container(NULL) > 0; > > > > - need_umount = true; > > + if (in_container && !have_effective_cap(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) > > + need_umount = false; > > + else > > + need_umount = true; > > + > > need_swapoff = !in_container; > > need_loop_detach = !in_container; > > need_dm_detach = !in_container; > > Hmm, I think we should just do "need_umount = !in_container", like we > do for the other things like loopback detaching, dm detaching or > swapoff. After all, if we run in a container we run in a mount > namespace anyway, so unmounting things is done by the kernel > implicitly if the namespace dies. At least in theory this means we can > simply skip the unmounting in all containers, but I must admit that I > am not entirely clear on this one, so this needs to be tested in the > common container managers really, I figure...
Do you mind if I push just need_umount = !in_container then? Michal > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel