Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
- From: Shaya Potter <spotter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:32:44 -0500
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 21:24 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jan 8 2007 14:43, Shaya Potter wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500
"Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is
+mounted, is currently unsupported.
Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under
/mnt/union, I am not allowed to alter anything under /a/b/
and /c/d/? That I may only alter stuff under /mnt/union?
If so, that sounds like a significant limitation.
haven't we been through this? It's the same thing as
modifying a block device while a file system is using it.
Now, when unionfs gets confused, it shouldn't oops, but would
one expect ext3 to allow one to modify its backing store while
its using it?
(Blunt counter-example: Modifying the underlying filesystem of
an NFS import does not break. But I agree with Shaya.)
Well it was suggested to make /a/b and /c/d read-only while the
union is mounted, using a ro bind mount, what about it? (To
catch unwanted tampering with the lowlevels)
not quite true. Run a program on an NFS root based system, modify the
files it has mmaped (on the NFS server). Do you expect the program to
behave correctly? Locally, you wouldn't be able to modify it (you would
have to move it away and put a new copy in its place), I could be wrong,
but I don't think that limitation exists if doing it with NFS.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [PATCH 00/24] Unionfs, try #4
- From: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek
- [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
- From: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek
- Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
- From: Shaya Potter
- Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
- From: Jan Engelhardt
- [PATCH 00/24] Unionfs, try #4
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails.
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 04/24] Unionfs: Common file operations
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 01/24] Unionfs: Documentation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|