linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion

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, 10 Jun 2011 00:02:05 +0200
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com, nbd@...nwrt.org,
	hramrach@...trum.cz, jordipujolp@...il.com, ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu,
	hooanon05@...oo.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes:

>> > Well, these things have been around for over 20 years.  What motivated
>> > the developers of other OS's to develop these things and how are their
>> > users using them?
>> 
>> That's a good question, Erez might be able to answer that better.
>> 
>> We have customers who need this for the "common base + writable
>> configuration" case in a virtualized environment.
>> 
>> Since overlayfs's announcement several projects have tried it and have
>> been very good testers and bug reporters.  These include OpenWRT, Ubuntu
>> and other Debian based live systems.
>
> I assume that the live CD was your motivator for developing overlayfs?

Actually no.  The main motivator was that I started reviewing
union-mounts and got thinking about how to do it better.

>> > Another issue: there have been numerous attempts at Linux overlay
>> > filesystems from numerous parties.  Does (or will) this implementation
>> > satisfy all their requirements?
>> 
>> Overlayfs aims to be the simplest possible but not simpler.
>> 
>> I think the reason why "aufs" never had a real chance at getting merged
>> is because of feature creep.
>> 
>> Of course I expect new features to be added to overlayfs after the
>> merge, but I beleive some of the features in those other solutions are
>> simply unnecessary.
>
> This is my main worry.  If overlayfs doesn't appreciably decrease the
> motivation to merge other unioned filesystems then we might end up with
> two similar-looking things.  And, I assume, the later and more
> fully-blown implementation might make overlayfs obsolete but by that
> time it will be hard to remove.
>
> So it would be interesting to hear the thoughts of the people who have
> been working on the other implementations.

Added J. R. Okajima (aufs maintainer) to CC.

Thanks,
Miklos
--
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/