I'd assume then that the multiple chroot thing, aside from helpful
projects, would be mostly useful for embedded systems?
On Sun, 2002-01-27 at 18:56, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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
> > > > Doesn't this seem BAD for an OS to allow?
> > > The Linux VFS gurus have said they want this. If you disagree,
> > > 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
> usage outside chroots (that is a feature inspired by plan9)
Systems Architect, CCNA
"It is the part of a good shepherd to shear his flock, not to skin it."
Description: This is a digitally signed message part