[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170207194742.GA4393@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:47:42 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@...il.com>,
Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
Dongsu Park <dongsu@...ocode.com>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...glemail.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@...il.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Phil Estes <estesp@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] shiftfs: uid/gid shifting bind mount
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 11:01:08AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:
> I was talking about inode stability in the filesystem underlying the
> export. I believe you're talking about inode number stability
> guarantees of the nfs client code itself, which are unrelated to the
> inode number guarantees of the exported filesystem?
They are 1:1 correlated for a Linux server at least.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists