Update on Overleaf.

report.tex

@@ -430,9 +430,12 @@ $ unshare --fork --mount-proc --pid
 
 Mount namespaces were by far the most challenging part of this project. When adding new features, they continuously raised problems in both API description, expected behaviour, and availability of tools in user-space. A comparison will be given in this section to two other namespaces, network and UTS, to show the significant differences in the design goals of mount namespaces. Many of the implementation problems here comes from a fundamental lack of consistency between mount namespaces and other namespaces in Linux.
 
-\subsection{Copy-on-Write}
+One of the defining features of Unix is everything's a file. This perhaps explains why mount namespaces, the namespaces which control the single file hierarchy, would be the most complex. This section presents a case study of the implementation of voiding the most difficult namespace and an analysis of why things were so much more difficult to implement than with others. We first look at the inheritance behaviour, and the link maintained between a freshly created namespace and its parent (§\label{sec:voiding-mount-inherited}). Secondly, I present shared subtrees and the reasoning behind them (§\ref{sec:voiding-mount-shared-subtrees}), before finishing with a discussion of lazy unmounting in Linux and the weakness of the userspace utilities (§\ref{sec:voiding-mount-lazy-unmount}). This culminates in a namespace that is successfully voided, but presents a huge burden to userspace programmers attempting to work with these namespaces in their own projects.
 
-Comparing to network namespaces, we see a huge difference in what occurs when a new namespace is created. When creating a new network namespace, the ideal conditions for a void process are created - a network namespace containing only a loopback adapter. That is, the process has no ability to interact with the outside network, and no immediate relation to the parent network namespace. To interact with alternate namespaces, one must explicitly create a connection between the two, or move a physical adapter into the new (empty) namespace. Mount namespaces, rather than creating a new and empty namespace, made the choice to create a copy of the parent namespace, in a copy-on-write fashion. That is, after creating a new mount namespace, the mount hierarchy appears much the same as before. This is shown in Listing \ref{lst:unshare-cat-passwd}, where the file \texttt{/etc/passwd} is shown before and after an unshare, revealing the same content.
+\subsection{Filesystem inheritance}
+\label{sec:voiding-mount-inherited}
+
+Compared to network namespaces, there is a huge difference in what occurs when a new namespace is created. When creating a new network namespace, the ideal conditions for a void process are created - a network namespace containing only a loopback adapter. That is, the process has no ability to interact with the outside network, and no immediate relation to the parent network namespace. To interact with alternate namespaces, one must explicitly create a connection between the two, or move a physical adapter into the new (empty) namespace. Mount namespaces, rather than creating a new and empty namespace, made the choice to create a copy of the parent namespace, in a copy-on-write fashion. That is, after creating a new mount namespace, the mount hierarchy appears much the same as before. This is shown in Listing \ref{lst:unshare-cat-passwd}, where the file \texttt{/etc/passwd} is shown before and after an unshare, revealing the same content.
 
 \begin{listing}
 \label{lst:unshare-cat-passwd}
@@ -474,7 +477,8 @@ sys:x:3:3:sys:/dev:/usr/sbin/nologin
 \end{minted}
 \end{listing}
 
-\subsection{Shared Subtrees}
+\subsection{Shared subtrees}
+\label{sec:voiding-mount-shared-subtrees}
 
 While some other namespaces are copy-on-write, for example UTS namespaces, they do not present the same problem as mount namespaces. Although UTS namespaces are copy-on-write, it is trivial to create the conditions for a void process by setting the hostname of the machine to a constant. This removes any relation to the parent namespace and to the outside machine. Mount namespaces instead maintain a shared pointer with most filesystems, more akin to not creating a new namespace than a copy-on-write namespace.
 
@@ -518,9 +522,10 @@ file_1 file_2
 
 \say{Notwithstanding the fact that the default propagation type for new mount is in many cases \texttt{MS\_PRIVATE}, \texttt{MS\_SHARED} is typically more useful.  For this reason, \texttt{systemd(1)} automatically remounts all mounts as \texttt{MS\_SHARED} on system startup. Thus, on most modern systems, the default propagation type is in practice \texttt{MS\_SHARED}.}
 
-This means that when creating a new namespace, mounts and unmounts are propagated by default. More specifically, it means that mounts and unmounts are propagated both from the parent namespace to the child, and from the child namespace to the parent. This can be highly confusing behaviour, as it provides minimal isolation by default. \texttt{unshare(1)} considers this behaviour inconsistent with the goals of unsharing - it immediately calls \texttt{mount("none", "/", NULL, MS\_REC|MS\_PRIVATE, NULL)} after \texttt{unshare(CLONE\_NEWNS)}, detaching the newly unshared tree. The reasoning for enabling \texttt{MS\_SHARED} by default is that containers created should not present the behaviour given in Listing \ref{lst:shared-subtrees}, and this behaviour is unavoidable unless the parent mounts are shared, while it is possible to disable the behaviour where necessary.
+This means that when creating a new namespace, mounts and unmounts are propagated by default. More specifically, it means that mounts and unmounts are propagated both from the parent namespace to the child, and from the child namespace to the parent. That is, if a mount is unmounted in the new namespace, it is also unmounted in the parent. This can be highly confusing behaviour, as it provides minimal isolation by default. \texttt{unshare(1)} considers this behaviour inconsistent with the goals of unsharing - it immediately calls \texttt{mount("none", "/", NULL, MS\_REC|MS\_PRIVATE, NULL)} after \texttt{unshare(CLONE\_NEWNS)}, detaching the newly unshared tree. The reasoning for enabling \texttt{MS\_SHARED} by default is that containers created should not present the behaviour given in Listing \ref{lst:shared-subtrees}, and this behaviour is unavoidable unless the parent mounts are shared, while it is possible to disable the behaviour where necessary.
 
 \subsection{Lazy unmounting}
+\label{sec:voiding-mount-lazy-unmount}
 
 Mount namespaces present further interesting behaviour when unmounting the old root filesystem. Although this may initially seem isolated to void processes, it is also a problem in a container system. Consider again the container created in Listing \ref{lst:shared-subtrees}: the existing root must be unmounted after pivoting, else the container remains fully connected to the outside root.
 
@@ -854,7 +859,7 @@ to \texttt{/var/www/html}, which is bind-mounted into an empty file system names
 
 \todo{Plot void creation costs in isolation.}
 
-\section{Application impact}
+\section{Runtime impact}
 \label{sec:evaluation-applications}
 
 \todo{Plot the impact of void processes against varying levels of privilege separation.}
@@ -902,10 +907,6 @@ A system for dynamically requesting statically specified network sockets was pre
 
 \appendix
 
-\chapter{TLS Server Example Application}
-
-
-
 \label{lastpage}
 %TC:endignore
 \end{document}