On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:39 PM, K Richard Pixley <rpix...@graphitesystems.com> wrote:
> Ah! Thank you. That's the piece I was missing. > > IMO, someone needs to take a clue-by-four to the heads of the > Fedora/RHEL/CentOS installer folks. I see no reason for this with btrfs. Other than the technical reasons Hugo mentions regarding nesting... The problem with the "install normally to top level with Linux FHS" approach like Ubuntu and openSUSE follow now, is that snapshots then have to go in the mounted path. This arguably exposes old binaries in that mounted path and is a possible security risk. There are some ways to mitigate that, but better when it's simply not in the mounted path, sorta like a chroot. It's also a better way to organize stateless systems. Myriad trees that can be used to form a stateless system existing "out of tree" and mounted either by path or subvolid is more sane (or at least less madness inducing) than alternatives. See under "what we propose" for the subvol naming convention: http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html This is also compatible with delivery of such systems with a btrfs seed device. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
