linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v15)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 21 Sep 2012 06:30:41 +0900
From:	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	hch@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, apw@...onical.com,
	nbd@...nwrt.org, neilb@...e.de, jordipujolp@...il.com,
	ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
	sedat.dilek@...glemail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v15)


Miklos Szeredi:
> Aufs provides much better filesystem semantics than either unionmounts
> or overlayfs.  But that does come at a price:
>
> aufs:       98 files changed, 29893 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> overlayfs:  22 files changed, 2981 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Yes, I have to admit that aufs grew up very big.
The fundamental (by design) difference between them is considering how
important the filesystem semantics is. You may dislike a big module,
but I am interested in how you (or someone else) will implement the
missing overlayfs features to keep the semantics. One approach is
implemented in aufs. I guess you will try another one. That is what I am
interesed.


J. R. Okajima
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/