-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#review93457
-----------------------------------------------------------
src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp (line 238)
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/#comment147836>
why MS_SHARED (bidirectional) vs MS_SLAVE (one-way)?
MS_SLAVE would probably give better isolation to the host mount-ns.
MS_SHARED would probably be better for a use case that I have in mind (doc'd in MESOS-349),
especially since cleanup() here does GC on mount points that are children of the sandbox.
- James DeFelice
On July 12, 2015, 4:46 a.m., Ian Downes wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated July 12, 2015, 4:46 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for mesos, Jie Yu, Timothy Chen, and Vinod Kone.
>
>
> Repository: mesos
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Moved filesystem/linux from review https://reviews.apache.org/r/34135/
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> src/Makefile.am e5b5d36f0ac160e5a3a9fdc50b31c060a413ce2c
> src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.hpp PRE-CREATION
> src/slave/containerizer/isolators/filesystem/linux.cpp PRE-CREATION
> src/slave/containerizer/mesos/containerizer.cpp 47d146125dfd4ea909e7ec9d94f41cfa11d035e5
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36429/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ian Downes
>
>
|