[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [autofs] [RFC] Towards a Modern Autofs
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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.084 / U:0.572 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site