On Jan 8 2007 14:43, Shaya Potter wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500
>> "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is
>> > +mounted, is currently unsupported.
>>
>> Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under
>> /mnt/union, I am not allowed to alter anything under /a/b/
>> and /c/d/? That I may only alter stuff under /mnt/union?
>>
>> If so, that sounds like a significant limitation.
>
> haven't we been through this? It's the same thing as
> modifying a block device while a file system is using it.
> Now, when unionfs gets confused, it shouldn't oops, but would
> one expect ext3 to allow one to modify its backing store while
> its using it?
(Blunt counter-example: Modifying the underlying filesystem of
an NFS import does not break. But I agree with Shaya.)
Well it was suggested to make /a/b and /c/d read-only while the
union is mounted, using a ro bind mount, what about it? (To
catch unwanted tampering with the lowlevels)
-`J'
--
-
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/
