Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756556AbXL2I3y (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:29:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752586AbXL2I3q (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:29:46 -0500 Received: from hawking.rebel.net.au ([203.20.69.83]:39914 "EHLO hawking.rebel.net.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752304AbXL2I3p (ORCPT ); Sat, 29 Dec 2007 03:29:45 -0500 Message-ID: <47760578.2090305@davidnewall.com> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 18:59:44 +1030 From: David Newall User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070221 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dean gaudet CC: Mark Lord , Al Viro , Alexander Viro , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: RFC: permit link(2) to work across --bind mounts ? References: <47684DBD.6030502@rtr.ca> <20071218230016.GF8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <20071218231404.GG8181@ftp.linux.org.uk> <47689608.3030503@rtr.ca> <4768973C.8020909@davidnewall.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2161 Lines: 50 dean gaudet wrote: > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, David Newall wrote: > >> Mark Lord wrote: >> >>> But.. pity there's no mount flag override for smaller systems, >>> where bind mounts might be more useful with link(2) actually working. >>> >> I don't see it. You always can make hard link on the underlying filesystem. >> If you need to make it on the bound mount, that is, if you can't locate the >> underlying filesystem to make the hard link, you can use a symbolic link. >> > > i run into it on a system where /home is a bind mount of /var/home ... i > did this because: > > - i prefer /home to be nosuid,nodev (multi-user system) > Whatever security /home has, /var/home is the one that restricts because users can still access their files that way. > - i prefer /home to not be on same fs as / > - the system has only one raid1 array, and i can't stand having two > writable filesystems competing on the same set of spindles (i like to > imagine that one fs competing for the spindles can potentially result > in better seek patterns) > ... > - i didn't want to try to balance disk space between /var and /home > - i didn't want to use a volume mgr just to handle disk space balance... > Pffuff. That's what volume managers are for! You do have (at least) two independent spindles in your RAID1 array, which give you less need to worry about head-stack contention. You probably want different mount restrictions on /home than /var, so you really must use separate filesystems. LVM is your friend. But with regards to bind mounts and hard links: If you want to be able to hard-link /home/me/log to /var/tmp/my-log, then I see nothing to prevent hard-linking /var/home/me/log to /var/tmp/my-log. I think it's possible to be too precious about preserving the illusion of one file-system structure when the reality is something different. Don't lose site of reality. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/