[patch 9/9] unprivileged mounts: add "no submounts" flag
miklos at szeredi.hu
Wed Jan 16 01:43:10 PST 2008
> > > Why not "nosubmnt"?
> > Why not indeed. Maybe I should try to use my brain sometime.
> Well it really should have 'user' or 'unpriv' in the name
> somewhere. 'nosubmnt' is more confusing than 'nomnt' because
> it no submounts really sounds like a reasonable thing in
I slept on it, and I still think 'nosubmnt' might be the best
compromise. Obviously the superuser has privileges, that override
what is normally allowed, and we don't find it strange when a
read-only file is happily being written by root.
It may feel wrong in the context of mounts, because we are so used to
mounts being privileged-only.
Objections? Once this goes in, it will stay the same forever, so now
is the time to express any doubts...
More information about the Containers