On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:37:42PM -0500, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > The only fields that we have to watch out for are the dentry and vfsmount.
> > Additionally, this makes Unionfs gentler on the stack as nameidata is rather
> > large.
>
> That's onviously not true at all. To handle any filesystems using intents
> (e.g. NFSv4) you need to do much more. Then again doing things correctly
> doesn't seem to be interesting to the stackable filesystems crowd an this
> problem has been constantly ignored over the last year, including merging
> ecryptfs which has been broken in the same way.
>
> Folks, if you want your stackable filesystem toys taken seriously you
> need to fix these kind of issues instead of talking them away. And yes,
> this will involve some surgery to the VFS.
Indeed. I asked around (#linuxfs) and it seemed that restoring the
dentry/vfsmount was sufficient for the purpose of passing intents down. If
this is not the case, I'll revert the patch to do the full namei allocation.
Josef "Jeff" Sipek.
--
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about
telescopes.
- Edsger Dijkstra
-
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/
