| 14 Feb 2023 |
 @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | well the awkward thing is that bind mounts aren't the only problem | 18:41:26 |
 @lily:lily.flowers | Yeah, was worried you were going to say that. We only handle it for bind mounts in NixOS though | 18:41:49 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | overlayfs, for instance, has the directory options that would need the same treatment | 18:41:44 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | I mean theoretically I could just make it do that for any mount if the source is a non-/dev and non-/sys path | 18:42:13 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | this isn't to say we shouldn't improve bind mounts | 18:41:56 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | * I mean theoretically I could just make it do that for any mount if the source is a non-/dev and non-/sys absolute path | 18:42:26 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | just saying it's awkward | 18:42:02 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @lily:lily.flowers
I mean theoretically I could just make it do that for any mount if the source is a non-/dev and non-/sys absolute path (Idk if there are scenarios where that would also Do The Wrong Thing too though) | 18:42:59 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | well the overlayfs example has the problem in the mount options, not the device or mountpoint | 18:43:19 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
overlayfs, for instance, has the directory options that would need the same treatment Oh true, didn't even think about that. Hopefully people aren't doing that as an fs needed for boot though? Because we only generate for those needed for boot, right? | 18:43:32 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
overlayfs, for instance, has the directory options that would need the same treatment * Oh true, didn't even think about that. Hopefully people aren't doing that as an fs needed for boot though? Because we only generate initrd fstab for those needed for boot, right? | 18:43:46 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | i mean, go look at qemu-vm.nix :P | 18:43:50 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | We currently do that | 18:43:56 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | Oh, joy | 18:44:03 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | I'm actually okay with that one staying special-cased tbh. I doubt someone would use it for anything other than having a writable nix store in a VM anyway | 18:45:02 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | I mean the real answer is to have a Root= option for mount units (all units?) so that the mount syscall occurs in a chroot or something so that all the scenarios are taken care of | 18:46:14 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | but that sounds very annoying to validate | 18:46:43 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | Idk, that makes way too much sense. Gotta make sure to pile on more and more hacks (/s) | 18:47:22 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | lol | 18:47:39 |
