Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...>
Cc: <hooanon05@...>, Jamie Lokier <jamie@...>, Phillip Lougher <phillip@...>, David Newall <davidn@...>, <linux-fsdevel@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <hch@...>
Date: Monday, June 2, 2008 - 10:54 am

Hi Arnd.

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:15:40PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann (arnd@arndb.de) wrote:

Inotify has nothing common with that - it notifies about inode update,
which is only thing needed for unionfs. VM and aufs vmops will take care of
reads and writes, since there is no duplication of the data here.


Or it is a feature, and you should not return dentry for lower file
system, when you can have different objects pointing to the
same object.


Hmm... I believe if exploit wants to do bad things and system prevents
it, it is actually a right decision? But since you asked, I'm not sure
anymore...


Everything has own limitation. 256 bytes per name is much stronger
problem, but everyone works with that.
It is a limitation, buts rather nonsignificant IMO.


Is this a double rot13 encoded "people will never use computers with
more than 640 kb of ram" phrase? :)

While working VFS union mounting does not exist, AUFS does work.
It is just another filesystem, which works and has big userbase. Any VFS
approach (when implemented) will work on its own and its implementation
does not depend on this particular fs.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Phillip Lougher, (Sat May 31, 11:19 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, David Newall, (Sat May 31, 2:56 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Sat May 31, 4:40 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, David Newall, (Sun Jun 1, 2:02 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Jan Engelhardt, (Sun Jun 1, 5:11 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Phillip Lougher, (Sat May 31, 11:54 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Jamie Lokier, (Sun Jun 1, 8:28 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Sun Jun 1, 5:49 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Mon Jun 2, 3:12 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support , Erez Zadok, (Mon Jun 2, 11:35 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Mon Jun 2, 7:15 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Evgeniy Polyakov, (Mon Jun 2, 10:54 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Mon Jun 2, 1:42 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Mon Jun 2, 10:13 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Mon Jun 2, 11:01 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support , Erez Zadok, (Mon Jun 2, 12:37 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support , Jan Engelhardt, (Mon Jun 2, 3:17 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Bharata B Rao, (Mon Jun 2, 2:07 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support , Erez Zadok, (Sun Jun 1, 11:51 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Jamie Lokier, (Mon Jun 2, 7:07 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support , Erez Zadok, (Sun Jun 1, 11:25 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Mon Jun 2, 3:51 am)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support , Erez Zadok, (Mon Jun 2, 2:13 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Phillip Lougher, (Mon Jun 2, 10:02 pm)
Re: [RFC 0/7] [RFC] cramfs: fake write support, Arnd Bergmann, (Sun Jun 1, 4:52 am)