Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 06:35 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I hope the confusion has passed for Trond. My impression was he
> > figured this was per process data so it didn't make sense any where
> > near a filesystem, and the superblock was the last place it should
> > be.
>
> You are still using the wrong abstraction. Data that is not global to
> the entire machine has absolutely _no_ place being put into the
> superblock. It doesn't matter if it is process-specific,
> container-specific or whatever-else-specific, it will still be vetoed.
>
> If your real problem is uid/gid mapping on top of generic filesystems,
> then have you looked into the *BSD solution of using a stackable
> filesystem (i.e. umapfs)?
A stackable FS is really overkill here, when all that is needed is a simple
mapping. An easy solution would be, to allow for perMount Handlers via
hooks into the VFS, as was suggested in the '[RFC] VFS: FS CoW using
redirection' thread.
Thanks!
--
Al
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]