> > > Why not "nosubmnt"?
> > 
> > Why not indeed.  Maybe I should try to use my brain sometime.
> 
> Well it really should have 'user' or 'unpriv' in the name
> somewhere.  'nosubmnt' is more confusing than 'nomnt' because
> it no submounts really sounds like a reasonable thing in
> itself...

I slept on it, and I still think 'nosubmnt' might be the best
compromise.  Obviously the superuser has privileges, that override
what is normally allowed, and we don't find it strange when a
read-only file is happily being written by root.

It may feel wrong in the context of mounts, because we are so used to
mounts being privileged-only.

Objections?  Once this goes in, it will stay the same forever, so now
is the time to express any doubts...

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