On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 12:58 -0700, Glenn Faden wrote:
> > This should be added to the FAQ !
> > As already said by others, it's not perfect, as it should be set up in
> > the global zone, but it's really better, better, better, better than
> > the current answer.
> Doesn't work.
That's what I thought too. The question though is -- why not *let*
it work under explicit permission? Again, I understand the use case
why it shouldn't work. But why there's no acknoledgement of a usability
of a case where it makes sense.
Doesn't a glance at this thread provide enough of a conviction that
asking a global zone to route *all* FS related traffic is a useful
thing to do?
> > My personal question now is : why didn't I find it by myself ! :-)
> Because it doesn't work. See:
> 1403 /*
> 1404 * Cross-zone mount triggering is disallowed.
> 1405 */
> 1406 if (fnip->fi_zoneid != getzoneid())
> 1407 return (EPERM); /* Not owner of mount */
This place is easy to fix if you ask me. The real question is what kind
of long lasting impact would allowing such a thing have. And this is
a conversation I'm very interested in having.
zones-discuss mailing list