On Thu, Jun 25, 2026, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 8:41 PM John Ericson [off-list ref] wrote:

It's sort of a combination -- read the data structures :)  Other than
the propagation part, they're really not that bad.

Are you saying path resolution *does* depend on the mount namespace that
the task belongs to? I certainly hope not! I did look over the data
structures along with my patches and I didn't see an example of this ---
just path resolution depending on the CWD and root directories (as one
would expect it to).

In any event, I think this discussion is sort of immaterial to the
proposed API change.  No one is about to remove the concept of a mount
namespace.  But maybe it makes sense to have a way to have a task that
doesn't actually belong to a mount namespace.  A mount namespace is
certainly going to exist.

I am not sure if that is addressed more to Al or me? I certainly do
agree with all that, in any case. Mount namespaces are absolutely here
to stay, and I'm just trying to make a process that does not belong to
one; that's exactly correct. Sorry if my motivation by way of historical
analysis veered off topic.

There will definitely be subtleties.  For example, what happens if a
task with "no mount namespace" tries to do OPEN_TREE_CLONE?  In some
logical sense it ought to work but it ought to be impossible to
actually mount the resulting tree anywhere, but this risks running
afoul of all kinds of checks.  Maybe you get a whole new mount
namespace (that does not become your current mnt_ns) if you
OPEN_TREE_CLONE?

This stuff is complex and it probably makes more sense to keep changes simple.

Yes it is subtle; I definitely don't claim to fully understand the
permission model with mount namespace modifications yet, for one. Should
we switch gears to just discussing the null CWD and root directories,
then, and return to mount namespaces later?

I have started to rework my patch series accordingly, so I have a new
draft first patch for just that, before changing anything else. I could
(after some testing) submit that next; it's pretty small.

John