From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031191AbXDQQyq (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:54:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031190AbXDQQyq (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:54:46 -0400 Received: from e2.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.142]:38210 "EHLO e2.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031185AbXDQQyp (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2007 12:54:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 11:54:34 -0500 From: "Serge E. Hallyn" To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk, linuxram@us.ibm.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.osdl.org Subject: Re: [patch 05/10] Add "permit user submounts" flag to vfsmount Message-ID: <20070417165434.GA31864@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> References: <20070416110308.739051445@szeredi.hu> <20070416110414.591968270@szeredi.hu> <20070416192050.GB30435@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <20070417143301.GH1442@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@szeredi.hu): > > > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT? I claim no way will people keep those > > > > straight. How about MNT_ALLOWUSER and MNT_USER? > > > > > > Umm, is "allowuser" more clear than "usermnt"? What is allowed to the > > > > I think so, yes. One makes it clear that we're talking about allowing > > user (somethings :), one might just as well mean "this is a user mount." > > > > > user? "allowusermnt" may be more descriptive, but it's a bit too > > > long. > > > > Yes, if it weren't too long it would by far have been my preference. > > Maybe despite the length we should still go with it... > > > > > I don't think it matters all that much, the user will have to look up > > > the semantics in the manpage anyway. Is "nosuid" descriptive? Not > > > very much, but we got used to it. > > > > nosuid is quite clear. > > Is it? Shouldn't these be "allowsuid", "noallowsuid", "allowexec", > "noallowexec"? > > See, we mentally add the "allow" quite easily. But they aren't accompanied by a flag meaning "don't allow any non-nosuid mounts below this point". *That* is what causes the problem here. > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT are so confusing that in the time I go from > > quitting the manpage to foregrounding my editor, I may have already > > forgotten which was which. > > Well, to the user they are always in the form "user=123" and > "usermnt", so they are not as easy to confuse. It still makes the kernel code harder to read, but for the user yes that is helpful. > But I feel a bit stupid bickering about this, because it isn't so > important. "allowuser" or "allowusermnt" are fine by me if you think > they are substantially better than "usermnt". Thanks, I really really do :) -serge