From owner-freebsd-arch Tue May 21 14:17:25 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D3A37B408; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:17:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pool0213.cvx22-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.198.213] helo=mindspring.com) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #2) id 17AH0Q-00053A-00; Tue, 21 May 2002 14:17:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3CEAB940.25FC9F7B@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:16:48 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson Cc: Maxime Henrion , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: a virtual fs to allow root mounting of any fs without special code References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Robert Watson wrote: > Spiffy. Once the nmount conversion is done, I'd love to have this in the > base system. As we discussed out of band, my only real concern was that > it wasn't quite a "real mount" in the sense that you don't use a 'struct > mount' when bootstrapping. And, as we discussed, that's probably fine for > this limited scenario, from my perspective, although you don't want people > doing "mount -t rootfs foo /mnt" or anything. I'd be interested in > hearing from others if they think the lack of a "heavy weight mount" is a > problem. You need to do exactly what you said you don't want people doing, in order to achieve proper jails that are indistinguishable by way of the root mounts. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message