On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 08:02 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> >
> >I agree that unionfs shouldn't oops, it should handle that situation in
> >a more graceful manner, but once the "backing store" is modified
> >underneath it, all bets are off for either unionfs or ext2/3 behaving
> >"correctly" (where "correctly" doesn't just mean handle the error
> >gracefully).
> >
> >But are you also 100% sure that messing with the underlying backing
> >store wouldn't be considered an admin bug as opposed to an administrator
> >bug? I mean there's nothing that we can do to prevent an administrator
> >from FUBAR'ing their system by
> >
> >dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/kmem.
> >
> >where does one draw the line? I agree that stackable file systems make
> >this a more pressing issue, as the "backing store" can be visible within
> >the file system namespace as a regular file system that people are
> >generally accustomed to interacting with.
>
> So here's an idea. When a branch is added, mount an empty space onto the
> branch. (From within the kernel, so it appears as a side-effect of mount(2))
>
> mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/a=rw:/b=ro none /union
>
> should imply something like
>
> mount --bind /var/lib/empty /a
> mount --bind /var/lib/empty /b
>
> Or better, yet, make them read-only:
>
> mount --rbind -o ro /a /a
> mount --rbind -o ro /b /b
> (hope this works as intended?)
>
> So that no one can tinker with /a and /b while the union is mounted.
I thought about that, but that doesn't help you w/ the NFS as branch
case.
-
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]
