From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <13426df10907131637v664635f3jb32e32c6fb3c103b@mail.gmail.com> References: <140e7ec30907130124g1a0e4c90m6d83a08516d95463@mail.gmail.com> <3aaafc130907131518y74523ef8rf9ddb92fb3d3d105@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10907131616k203f0676yb181157cac24d179@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10907131637v664635f3jb32e32c6fb3c103b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:47:30 -0500 Message-ID: From: Eric Van Hensbergen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] v9fs question Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e005d9c-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:37 PM, ron minnich wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > >> Not sure how easy or difficult this would be inside the kernel -- the >> central problem last time I looked at it was it was difficult to >> unshare namespace after the fork. > > Well, my mount command cheated. When you ran the mount command, it did > a fork and set CLONE_NS. You were, at that point, in a private name > space. Yes, ugly, but it certainly ensured a private mount. > Sure, and 9mount could do the same thing, but it would be nice to enforce it from the kernel somehow. -eric