linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/74] Union mounts version something or other

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTi=2axu52Mbj+N+qUL+1vUJAU2-maL3w3dV740Et@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 Mar 2011 03:32:35 +0100
From:	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...glemail.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc:	Valerie Aurora <valerie.aurora@...il.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>, hch@....de,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/74] Union mounts version something or other

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:38:39AM +0100, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> [...]
>> Whuzzz up with AUFS?
>> Even there where massive changes to VFS and FS in 2.6.38+, there is an
>> adapted kernel patch around (for example see Debian's 2.6.38 linux-2.6
>> packages in experimental branch).
>
> Do not cite the Debian kernel team as supporting aufs.  It is included
> only because Debian Live needs some kind of union filesystem, and only
> until that appears in-tree.
>

Debian is using AUFS - that is a fact!
That is exactly what I mean... as there is no *official* (and working!
and really used) union-filesystem from kernel-side.
Diverse distributions (and especially the embedded area) use AUFS (as
overlay) and SquashFS (for compression) as an *unofficial* working
solution for years. including Debian.
SquashsFS and hopefully SquashFS-XZ is in the kernel, but not AUFS.
So, I am interested in (a new discussion and) re-thinking what is the
number #1 choice in that area.
BTW, in the meantime Ric Wheeler asked for a comparison between
Union-mounts and OverlayFS  [1].
Let's see and read.

>> From my POV OverlayFS is the new star at the skyline and should be
>> promoted as 1st choice, now.
> [...]
>
> This thread is for technical review, not marketing.
>

My POV is clear - I already gave some technical arguments contra union-mounts.
An official and working(!) solution is needed and "promoted" from the
big five in Linux kernel (filesystem) development.
A decision what is the (next and new preferred?) standard
union-filesystem in the kernel-world.
Now, there is a new problem for union-mounts as one of its main
maintainer stopped working on it.
Even OverlayFS is young, it is already used as a working(!) solution in OpenWRT.
People do not need and want a never-ending "technical preview" for
years, they need and want a working(!) solution, that is/was mostly
AUFS chosen *unofficially* (and remember rejected into mainline).
Personally, I did not see/read union-mounts used by any distro or in
the embedded world.

- Sedat -

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg43345.html
--
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/