Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261390AbVDQSHE (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261388AbVDQSHE (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:07:04 -0400 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:20643 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261384AbVDQSG5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Apr 2005 14:06:57 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:06:36 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Eric Van Hensbergen Cc: Miklos Szeredi , dan@debian.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org, akpm@osdl.org, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Subject: Re: [RFC] FUSE permission modell (Was: fuse review bits) Message-ID: <20050417180636.GA22892@mail.shareable.org> References: <20050411153619.GA25987@nevyn.them.org> <20050411181717.GA1129@nevyn.them.org> <20050411192223.GA3707@nevyn.them.org> <20050411214123.GF32535@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2009 Lines: 43 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > I'd like to second that I think private-namespaces are the right way > to solve this sort of problem. It also helps not cluttering the > global namespace with user-local mounts > > > > > Shared subtrees and more support in userspace tools is needed before > > private namespaces can become really useful. > > > > I'd like to talk about this a bit more and start driving to a solution > here. I've been looking at the namespace code quite a bit and was > just about to dive in and start checking into adding/fixing certain > aspects such as stackable namespaces, optional inheritence (changes in > a parent namespace are reflected in the child but not vice-versa), > etc. > > One aspect I was thinking about here was a mount flag that would give > you a new private namespace (if you didn't already have one) for the > mount (and I guess that would impact any subsequent mounts from the > user in that shell). Another option would be a 'newns' style > system-call, but I'm generally against adding new system calls. > > Shared subtrees are a tricky one. I know how we would handle it in > V9FS, but not sure how well that would translate to others > (essentially we'd re-export the subtree so other user's could mount it > individually -- but that's a very Plan 9 solution and may not be what > more UNIX-minded folks would want -- we also need to improve our own > server infrastructure to more efficiently support such a re-export). > > So, to sum up I think private namespaces is the right solution, and > I'd rather put effort into making it more useful than work-around the > fact that its not practical right now. Have a chat with Al Viro, who has already done some work on shared mounts and subtrees I think. -- Jamie - 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/