On 09/09/2013 09:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)redhat.com>
If the guest is configured with
<filesystem type='mount'>
<source dir='/'/>
<target dir='/'/>
<readonly/>
</filesystem>
Then any submounts under / should also end up readonly. eg if
the user has /home on a separate volume, they'd expect /home
to be readonly.
Users can selectively make sub-mounts read-write again by
simply listing them as new mounts without the <readonly>
flag set
<filesystem type='mount'>
<source dir='/home'/>
<target dir='/home'/>
</filesystem>
Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com>
---
src/lxc/lxc_container.c | 75 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
ACK.
+ while (getmntent_r(procmnt, &mntent, mntbuf, sizeof(mntbuf))
!= NULL) {
+ if (STREQ(mntent.mnt_dir, "/") ||
+ STRPREFIX(mntent.mnt_dir, "/.oldroot"))
Is this safe, or do you want to check against /.oldroot/ to ensure that
you filter out something like /.oldroot-fake?
+ continue;
+
+ if (VIR_REALLOC_N(mounts, nmounts+1) < 0)
space around +; also, would VIR_EXPAND work nicer than VIR_REALLOC_N?
+
+ for (i = 0 ; i < nmounts ; i++) {
Looks unusual to have space before ';' inside the 'for' setup; is there
a syntax check to enforce a consistent style?
--
Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library
http://libvirt.org