Hi,
Long long ago, (March 2000) Alexander Viro replied to Pavel Machek:
>> Am I right that from now on each process can have completely different
>> view of filesystem like in plan9?
>
>Almost there ;-) And yes, the only thing we lack for proper namespaces is
>the union-directories (clone() bit is trivial).
Are there any patches already?
If not, where should I start to implement them?
Probably related to the first question, what about allowing mount(2)
(as a CONFIG-option) for normal user processes when they
have a) rw access to the device and b) are the owner/have rw-access
to the mountpoint. (There would be at least one security problem:
A normal user could mount a loopback ext2 filesystem with
panic-on-error (man tune2fs) and then corrupt it)
In April, Al Viro wrote:
> 1. We should never have more than one dentry for a writable directory.
>
> Print it and hang it on the wall. It's a fundamental requirement. There is
> no way to work around it in our VFS. I tried to invent a scheme that would
> allow that for more than a year. And I've done most of namespace-related code
> in our VFS since the moment when Bill Hawes stopped working on it, so I suspect
> that right now I have the best working knowledge of that stuff. There is no
> fscking way to survive multiple dentries for writable directory without major
> lossage. Period.
Do I understand correctly that this means hardlinks to directories
(except . and ..) are fundamentally impossible in Linux?
(I'm thinking about trying to write a garbage collected
filesystem with hardlinks to directories.)
--
Linux 2.4.0-test11 #1 Mon Nov 20 17:19:26 CET 2000
[Remi Turk]
> Do I understand correctly that this means hardlinks to directories
> (except . and ..) are fundamentally impossible in Linux?
Why do you want to be able to do that? Use symlinks or loopback mounts
and stay out of trouble.
> (I'm thinking about trying to write a garbage collected filesystem
> with hardlinks to directories.)
Sounds like a lot of extra complexity. Is this academic or do you have
a practical use for it?
Peter
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Remi Turk]
> > Do I understand correctly that this means hardlinks to directories
> > (except . and ..) are fundamentally impossible in Linux?
>
> Why do you want to be able to do that? Use symlinks or loopback mounts
> and stay out of trouble.
Probably just because I'm crazy ;-)
Of course I could use symlinks or loopback mounts, but it itn't nearly
as much fun as a directory which really contains itself :-)
> > (I'm thinking about trying to write a garbage collected filesystem
> > with hardlinks to directories.)
>
> Sounds like a lot of extra complexity. Is this academic or do you have
> a practical use for it?
Acedemic.
Well, I might find some practical use for it some day.
(I got inspired by an old thread about garbage collecting filesystems
without a clear answer about whether it was possible to write one in
Linux
(http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0001.1/0410.html)
and the recent thread "[BUG] Inconsistent behaviour of rmdir")
>
> Peter
--
Linux 2.4.0-test11-ac4 #1 Tue Nov 28 15:51:01 CET 2000