[Devel] Re: [patch 05/10] Add "permit user submounts" flag to vfsmount

[Serge E. Hallyn]

Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos at szeredi.hu):
> > > > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT?  I claim no way will people keep those
> > > > straight.  How about MNT_ALLOWUSER and MNT_USER?
> > > 
> > > Umm, is "allowuser" more clear than "usermnt"?  What is allowed to the
> > 
> > I think so, yes.  One makes it clear that we're talking about allowing
> > user (somethings :), one might just as well mean "this is a user mount."
> > 
> > > user?  "allowusermnt" may be more descriptive, but it's a bit too
> > > long.
> > 
> > Yes, if it weren't too long it would by far have been my preference.
> > Maybe despite the length we should still go with it...
> > 
> > > I don't think it matters all that much, the user will have to look up
> > > the semantics in the manpage anyway.  Is "nosuid" descriptive?  Not
> > > very much, but we got used to it.
> > 
> > nosuid is quite clear.
> 
> Is it?  Shouldn't these be "allowsuid", "noallowsuid", "allowexec",
> "noallowexec"?
> 
> See, we mentally add the "allow" quite easily.

But they aren't accompanied by a flag meaning "don't allow any
non-nosuid mounts below this point".  *That* is what causes the problem
here.

> > MNT_USER and MNT_USERMNT are so confusing that in the time I go from
> > quitting the manpage to foregrounding my editor, I may have already
> > forgotten which was which.
> 
> Well, to the user they are always in the form "user=123" and
> "usermnt", so they are not as easy to confuse.

It still makes the kernel code harder to read, but for the user yes that
is helpful.

> But I feel a bit stupid bickering about this, because it isn't so
> important.  "allowuser" or "allowusermnt" are fine by me if you think
> they are substantially better than "usermnt".

Thanks, I really really do  :)

-serge
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers