From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261982AbVEKXBF (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2005 19:01:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262071AbVEKW7i (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2005 18:59:38 -0400 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.194]:53560 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262059AbVEKW6l convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2005 18:58:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=av3haCXP9Dku4YPaiY0VwqeU2ZHEDXUPpO1CqGJ7QlVrTKdrsEgUtk9J5znXJnLuzghNcI/k8cz5QPipl7AEsn8j1mW9FU+IF4TkKDkn+CNHU2x4R4NwnjXuW2TUrPdLTY80Mfa2qtNXNQJncHM8K977h+DJVKMsvvNI9PEBMsg= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 17:58:41 -0500 From: Eric Van Hensbergen Reply-To: Eric Van Hensbergen To: Ram Subject: Re: [RCF] [PATCH] unprivileged mount/umount Cc: Jamie Lokier , Miklos Szeredi , 7eggert@gmx.de, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, smfrench@austin.rr.com, hch@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1115851333.6248.225.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <406SQ-5P9-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <40t37-7ol-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <42VeB-8hG-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <42WNo-1eJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <20050511170700.GC2141@mail.shareable.org> <1115840139.6248.181.camel@localhost> <20050511212810.GD5093@mail.shareable.org> <1115851333.6248.225.camel@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/11/05, Ram wrote: > On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 14:28, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Ram wrote: > > Well it makes it totally confusing. A user would start seeing different > set of mounts suddenly as he changes directories beloning to different > namespaces. I am not sure, if changing namespace implicitly is a good > idea. Not saying its a bad idea, but seems to change my notion of > namespaces completely. > > I think a process should have access to one > namespace at any given point in time, and should have the ability > to explicitly switch to a different namespace of its choice, provided > it has enough access permission to that namespace. > I agree with Ram. This whole recent flurry of activity seems to be going down a path which will end in tears. I think Miklos' patch for allowing user mounts and Janak's patch were both more or less the direction I'd like to see us moving. Let's hold off on all these freaky shared-namespace and passed-namespace semantics until we get the basics in place and get some experience using them. -eric