[Top] [All Lists]

Re: double mounting and other strangeness.

To: pac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: double mounting and other strangeness.
From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 01:56:56 +0100
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20020127173852.A14538@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20020127113553.A13031@xxxxxxxxxxx> <27476.1012173537@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020127173852.A14538@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/
On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 05:38:52PM -0600, pac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:18:57AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> > >> That is normal with any recent 2.4 kernel, it applies to all
> > >> filesystems, not just XFS.  You can even mount different file system
> > >  Doesn't this seem BAD for an OS to allow? 
> > The Linux VFS gurus have said they want this.  If you disagree, please
> > take it up on the vfs or kernel mailing lists, it is out of our
> > control.
>   Is there any legitimate reason you would want to do this? I dont
> want to scream at them if there is a good reason for it. What is the
> opinion of the FS developers here?

It's for example useful for chroot. You can mount a single file system
in multiple chroots.  There is also the related feature of mount --bind
which allows to do the same thing for directories and files. Again
it is useful for chroots.
2.5 also allows you to change that "namespace" per process, extending the
usage outside chroots (that is a feature inspired by plan9) 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>