From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762169AbZAFWmm (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:42:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758589AbZAFWmY (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:42:24 -0500 Received: from mail-out1.uio.no ([129.240.10.57]:43495 "EHLO mail-out1.uio.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757750AbZAFWmW (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:42:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: Use utsnamespaces From: Trond Myklebust To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Cc: Matt Helsley , Linux Containers , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , "J. Bruce Fields" , Chuck Lever , "Eric W. Biederman" , Linux Containers , Cedric Le Goater In-Reply-To: <20090106215831.GE18147@us.ibm.com> References: <20090106011314.534653345@us.ibm.com> <20090106011314.961946803@us.ibm.com> <20090106200229.GA17031@us.ibm.com> <1231274682.20316.65.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20090106215831.GE18147@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:42:12 -0500 Message-Id: <1231281732.4173.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO) X-UiO-Scanned: 3CDC04F290650C57C1CDE2E4CB7FB788DFFDB355 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 68.40.183.129 spam_score: -49 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 327 max/h 9 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:58 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > So should we use patch 2/4, plus (as someone - was it you? - suggested) > using a DEFAULT instead of init_utsname()->nodename when > current->utsname() == NULL? No. I'm don't think that 2/4 is correct either. Basically, 2/4 is saying that the container that first mounts the filesystem 'owns' it. However at the same time we know that the lifetime of the filesystem is in no way bounded by the lifetime of the container, and that's what gets you into trouble with 'umount' in the first place. IMO, the current code is the most correct approach, in that it assumes that the filesystems are owned by the 'init' namespace. Trond