> A very good point, and I hope you don't think the response "trust the > user to administer their system and accept that it is possible to do > broken things" is trying to dodge the issue.
no, i don't. i think that is a reasonable answer. however, it does change the use case considerably. and it makes me wary of building tools based on this feature, excepting emergency tools ment to attempt system rescue. to me, the manipulating the ns through the fs would make the most sense if one could also create a new process through /proc. but the reasons for this depend on some wild and unfinished ideas. > to the CPU connection to another machine. The fact that rewriting a > namespace doesn't change the chan associated with a currently open > file descriptor imposes a bit of sanity assurance that standard > filesystem operatings won't go berserk just because they were in the > middle of a write when you wrote a ns operation to their ns file. this does have the potential to create vast confusion. i should have mentioned it before. - erik
