config-linux: describe more about rootfs mount propagation (cont'd)#1035
Merged
Conversation
Section of rootfs mount propagation modes should include more descriptions about each propagation mode as well as its actual meaning in the real world. Since the shared subtrees document in the Linux Kernel is not exactly readable for ordinary users, we should elaborate more on this topic in the runtime-spec. Fixes opencontainers#973 Suggested by @alban, @iaguis Signed-off-by: Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io> Signed-off-by: H. Vetinari <h.vetinari@gmx.com>
This was referenced Mar 5, 2020
Closed
tianon
reviewed
Mar 5, 2020
| This means that further mounts (e.g. nested containers) will also belong to that peer group and will propagate events to the rootfs. | ||
| Note this does not mean that it's shared with the host. | ||
| * **`slave`**: the rootfs mount receives propagation events from the host (e.g. if something is mounted on the host it will also appear in the container) but not the other way around. | ||
| * **`shared+slave`**: the rootfs mount is slave to the host but it also has its own peer group, so mounts from the host will appear in the container and in a nested container (if the nested container `rootfsPropagation` option allows it), but mounts in a nested container can only propagate to the rootfs and not to the host. |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry for the late comment, but as I've noted on #973 (comment), I'm not totally convinced we're ready for this value to be added -- IMO this and the formatting update can/should be split.
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just rebased the PR as it was, but I'm happy to remove this if that helps get it merged.
h-vetinari
changed the title
Signed-off-by: H. Vetinari <h.vetinari@gmx.com>
Member
|
LGTM Thanks! (I think we should discuss |
Member
|
LGTM |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I offered to rebase #975 by @dongsupark, which had grown conflicts with master and wasn't getting much attention anymore, so here it is.
Fixes #973
Closes #975
Edit: following review, does not include the portion about
shared+slavefrom #975.