Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2015 15:29:36 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: jon <jon@jonshouse.co.uk>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, coreutils@gnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Feature request, "create on mount" to create mount point
 directory on mount, implied remove on unmount
Message-ID: <20150705142936.GW17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <1435924919.6501.432.camel@jonspc>
 <172423.1436043394@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
 <1436050108.6501.509.camel@jonspc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1436050108.6501.509.camel@jonspc>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1148
Lines: 22

On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 11:48:28PM +0100, jon wrote:

> Yes, but like I say automount is normally based on an event. I am simply
> talking about a flag/switch that can be used for optional implied
> mkdir,rmdir around calls to mount() unount() - nothing more, nothing
> less !

umount(2) is not the only way for mount to detached from a mountpoint.
There's exit(2) as well - when the last process in a namespace exits, it
gets dissolved.  What should happen upon those?  Even more interesting question
is what should happen if you do such mount, then clone a process into a new
namespace and have it exit.  Should _that_ rmdir the hell out of that
mountpoint (presumably detaching everything mounted on it in all namespaces)?

What should happen when a process in new namespace decides to unmount that
thing, because they don't what it visible.  Should that take out the instance
in parent namespace? `
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/