linux-kernel - Re: New filesystem for Linux kernel

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: <15922.1235492819@jrobl>
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:26:59 +0900
From:	hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
To:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:	tomas@...x.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: New filesystem for Linux kernel 

Miklos Szeredi:
> It's always easier to review something with less features, even if
> that feature set is too little for real world use.

Generally I agree with you.

> The simplest version is with all branches read-only.  That gets rid of
> a _huge_ amount of complexity, yet it's still useful in some
> situations.  It also deals with a lot of the basic infrastucture
> needed for stacking.

If you really think it is a better way to get merged into mainline, then
I'll try implement such version.

> And that's when one starts thinking about whether unioning is really
> the right solution.  Instead this could be implemented with a special
> filesystem format that only contains deltas to the data, metatata and
> directory tree.  It would be much more space efficient, could easily
> handle renames, hard links etc, without all the hacks that
> unionfs/aufs does.

It sounds like an ODF (on disk format) version of unionfs (while it
seems to be inactive).
At implementing, I don't think it easier to maintain delta of filedata
and metadata. Since aufs has a writable branch in it, it is better and
easier to maintain data in a branch fs.
If you think there should not be any writable branch in aufs, and all
"write" goes to a new filesystem format, then it is equivalent to a
writable branch, isn't it?
If you say "just a part of write" goes to a new fs, then I don't think
we can support several essential features, for instance mmap.

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/