linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0701090031220.20773@yvahk01.tjqt.qr>
Date:	Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:34:49 +0100 (MET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
cc:	Shaya Potter <spotter@...columbia.edu>,
	"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@...sunysb.edu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	hch@...radead.org, viro@....linux.org.uk, torvalds@...l.org,
	mhalcrow@...ibm.com, David Quigley <dquigley@....cs.sunysb.edu>,
	Erez Zadok <ezk@...sunysb.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation


On Jan 8 2007 14:02, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Shaya Potter <spotter@...columbia.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> the difference is bind mounts are a vfs construct, while unionfs is a
>> file system.
>
>Well yes.  So the top-level question is "is this the correct way of doing
>unionisation?".
>I suspect not, in which case unionfs is at best a stopgap until someone
>comes along and implements unionisation at the VFS level, at which time
>unionfs goes away.

Not either. I *think* Jan Blunck wrote a pdf-paper about 'union mounts', i.e.
the vfs construct you refer to. [
http://www.free-it.org/archiv/talks_2005/paper-11254/paper-11254.pdf looks like
it ]
However, it's not duplicating a namespace, hence, unionfs also has a
right to exist.


>a) is unionfs a sufficiently useful stopgap to justify a merge and
>
>b) would an interim merge of unionfs increase or decrease the motivation
>   for someone to do a VFS implementation?
>
>I suspect the answer to b) is "increase": if unionfs proves to be useful
>then people will be motivated to produce more robust implementations of the
>same functionality.  If it proves to not be very useful then nobody will
>bother doing anything, which in a way would be a useful service.

Fact is, when it's in, bugs could be shaken out. Though then I think what
better AUFS could do.


	-`J'
-- 
-
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/