config: Make default Linux filesystems an example #679
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The MUST default-filesystem wording altered in 279c3c0 (linux: relax filesystem requirements for container, 2017-01-23, opencontainers#666) had read (to me, anyway) as: The runtime MUST supply these even if the config doesn't call for them in mounts. with 279c3c0 weaking it to: The runtime SHOULD supply these even if the config doesn't call for them in mounts. But that's not very useful (callers that *need* a given mount will still have to configure it explicitly). However, one interpretation of the 279c3c0 wording seems to be something like [1]: Config authors probably want to include mounts entries for these. That's fine, and this commit tries to make that interpretation more obvious by shifting the config recommendation over to the Linux 'mounts' example. The values I'm using are straight from [2]. [1]: opencontainers#666 (comment) [2]: opencontainers/runtime-tools#24 Signed-off-by: W. Trevor King <[email protected]>
wking
force-pushed
the
clarify-filesystem-requirements
branch
from
26711d8 to
235610d
Compare
Member
|
REJECT Please don't open two conflicting PRs for the same thing, at the same time. Its confusing and just splits discussions. Closing this in favor of the first one opened where there is discussion happening. |
wking
added a commit
to wking/nmbug-oci
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2017
The mount-requirement was softened to a SHOULD in [1]. It's not clear
to me whether that SHOULD is directed at config authors ("you should
explicitly include mounts for these") or at runtimes ("you should
provide these even if the config doesn't ask for them"), but my
attempts to clarify that one way or the other were both rejected
[2,3]. The current runtime-tools and runC approach favors the
config-author direction [4], which is what I'd asked for in the
original thread post, so I'm tagging this obsolete.
[1]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#666
[2]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#679 (comment)
[3]: opencontainers/runtime-spec#678 (comment)
[4]: opencontainers/runtime-tools#24
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The MUST default-filesystem wording altered in #666 had read (to me, anyway) as:
with #666 weaking it to:
But that's not very useful (callers that need a given mount will still have to configure it explicitly). However, one interpretation of the #666 wording seems to be something like:
That's fine, and this commit tries to make that interpretation more obvious by shifting the config recommendation over to the Linux
mountsexample.This is one of the possible approaches I'd floated in #666. Another approach is just dropping the section (#678), so this PR is a parallel alternative to #678.