Re: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs

From: H. Peter Anvin
Date: Wed Jan 07 2004 - 12:58:55 EST


Mike Waychison wrote:

This is clearly not 'all of userspace'. Autofs is an exception. As is /etc/mtab. The way I see it, automounting is a 'mount facility', as are namespaces. The two should be made to work together. Yes, mount(8) should probably be fixed one way or another as well due to /etc/mtab breakage. Why? Because it too is a mount facility.

There are a couple problems inherent with namespaces. Most of these are mount facilities that are broken such as mentioned above. They *should* be fixed to work nicely.

For that one needs to know how the namespaces are used, not just how they are implemented. There was a long discussion on this on #kernel yesterday, by the way.

Other parts of userspace get confused with namespaces, eg: cron and atd. These programs clearly need infrastructure added that somehow allows for arbitrary namespace joining/saving. If you have suggestions for how we can solve this issue, please do let me know. I'm stumped :\ I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you.

Do they? In order for that to be a "clearly", I believe one needs to understand how namespaces are used in practice. It may not be desirable or even possible; this starts getting into a policy decision.

One not-so-far fetched approach would be to associate cron/at jobs with automount configurations so that a namespace can be re-constructed at runtime.

I am not entirely sure what you mean with this, but it sounds incredibly dangerous to me.

-hpa

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/