From: Matt Helsley Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] sunrpc: Use utsnamespaces Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 16:08:50 -0800 Message-ID: <1231286930.14345.196.camel@localhost> 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> <1231281732.4173.6.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: "Serge E. Hallyn" , Linux Containers , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , "J. Bruce Fields" , Chuck Lever , "Eric W. Biederman" , Linux Containers , Cedric Le Goater To: Trond Myklebust Return-path: Received: from e38.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.159]:35199 "EHLO e38.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753535AbZAGAJF (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 19:09:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1231281732.4173.6.camel-rJ7iovZKK19ZJLDQqaL3InhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 17:42 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > 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. IMHO This seems more incorrect than trying to use a more proximal namespace. Cheers, -Matt Helsley