In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E1sztor_L=E9n=E1rd_Zolt=E1n?=" writes:
> Hi, > > I am using unionfs 2.1.10 (for 2.6.23.8). > The unionfs root has two layers, a read-only nfs filesystem and a tmpfs. > When I doing some test i got this: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# mkdir /var/lib/misc/testdir > mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/lib/misc/testdir': Read-only file > system > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# mkdir /var/lib/misc/testdir > mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/lib/misc/testdir': Read-only file > system > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# touch /var/lib/misc/testdir > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# rm /var/lib/misc/testdir > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# mkdir /var/lib/misc/testdir && echo OK > OK > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# > > It looks like a problem within unionfs COW algoritm. If the parent director= > y > not exists in the COW layer the mkdir failed. > When the parent directory (/var/lib/misc) exists in the COW layer (after > touching a file on it) the subdirectory can created. > It is a real bug, or I miss something? > > thx, Lenard, I think I may have found your problem. My guess is that you're using a readonly-exported NFS partition, right? In your followup email you listed the sequence of mounts you've used as follows: > mount -t tmpfs none /1 > mount -t nfs st1:/base /2 > mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/1=rw:/2=nfsro unionfs /root This puzzled me. You're using the 'nfsro' option, which I *know* I've removed a while back. It was valid only for unionfs 1.x, but in unionfs 2.1, it's no longer needed -- just plain 'ro' works the same whether its nfs or not. So how come unionfs 2.x allowed the "unknown" nfsro option to be accepted? It was an option-parsing bug, which I fixed, and which would be in unionfs-2.1.11 when I release it. From now on, unrecognized branch-mode options would not default to 'rw' but would produce a mount-time error. The fix to your problem is to use the =ro option: # mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/1=rw:/2=ro unionfs /root With that, unionfs will recognize that the /2 directory is a readonly branch, and that would cause copy-ups to take place normally, and you shouldn't be getting an EROFS error from mkdir/touch, etc. Please give this a try and let me know how it works for you. Thanks, Erez. _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list: http://unionfs.filesystems.org/ unionfs@mail.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
