Quoting Miklos Szeredi (miklos@szeredi.hu):
> > > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
> > > 
> > > If MNT_USERMNT flag is not set in the target vfsmount, then
> > 
> > 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.  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.

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