On 09/09/2013 09:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
From: "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@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@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