Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, 01.04.15 15:45, Jan Synacek ([email protected]) wrote: > >> > I am also against this since chrooting is an implementation detail of >> > mock, nothing more, and the fact that mock's recursive deletion logic >> > cannot handle removal of subvolumes is not directly connected to the >> > fact that mock uses chroot. >> > >> > Sorry, but we need to find a different solution for this. >> > >> > Maybe mock should use seccomp to make the subvolume creation ioctls >> > unavailable, or it should be updated to deal with subvolumes properly. >> >> I agree that mock should be enhanced to cope with subvolumes, but I also >> think that systemd shouldn't create them where it doesn't make >> sense. I don't think that that's achievable with the current logic. Am I >> missing something? > > But why do you say "when it doesn't make sense"? Why do you think this > doesn't make sense...
I think that in mock root it doesn't. But that's a special case. -- Jan Synacek Software Engineer, Red Hat
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
