On Monday 08 April 2013 15:57:10 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 08.04.13 14:08, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > I am not sure, depends if you think the behaviour is correct or not.
> > Either
> > way, I would say that the systemd change to make root "rshared" by default
On Mon, 08.04.13 14:08, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > > Well, but in your example you unmounted a bind mount with a child, and
> > > > that resulted in the unmounting of the child in the source mount, too --
> > > > even though you never asked for that child mount to be
On Friday 05 April 2013 18:42:20 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 05.04.13 17:27, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > On Friday 05 April 2013 18:23:35 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected])
wrote:
> > > > > Hmm, d
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:27, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> On Friday 05 April 2013 18:23:35 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > > Hmm, does this always happen this way, or is the MS_REC flag "sticky"
On Friday 05 April 2013 18:23:35 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > Hmm, does this always happen this way, or is the MS_REC flag "sticky"
> > > and causes the MNT_DETACH to be recursive?
> > >
> > > That looks a bit like a
On Fri, 05.04.13 17:19, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Hmm, does this always happen this way, or is the MS_REC flag "sticky"
> > and causes the MNT_DETACH to be recursive?
> >
> > That looks a bit like a kernel misfeature, no?
>
> To me it looks like the kernel is working
On Friday 05 April 2013 17:55:46 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 02.04.13 10:27, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > You need to try it since you don't seem to believe me. :)
> >
> > + M1=testmp1
> > + M2=testmp2
> > + SM=submount
> > + mkdir -p testmp1
> > + mkdir -p testm
On Tue, 02.04.13 10:27, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> You need to try it since you don't seem to believe me. :)
>
> + M1=testmp1
> + M2=testmp2
> + SM=submount
> + mkdir -p testmp1
> + mkdir -p testmp2
> + mount none -t tmpfs testmp1
> + mkdir -p testmp1/submount
> + mount
Hi,
On Friday 29 March 2013 15:56:01 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 28.03.13 16:47, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As a bit of a feedback, the change in systemd to mark root fs as
> > recursively shared by default has the potential to bite hard anyon
On Thu, 28.03.13 16:47, Tvrtko Ursulin ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As a bit of a feedback, the change in systemd to mark root fs as recursively
> shared by default has the potential to bite hard anyone who builds chroot-ed
> environments on their system.
>
> When you
Hi all,
As a bit of a feedback, the change in systemd to mark root fs as recursively
shared by default has the potential to bite hard anyone who builds chroot-ed
environments on their system.
When you build your chroot fs and then bind mount bits of the outside world
into it, you are up for a
11 matches
Mail list logo