On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Alexander Viro wrote:
> IMO a part of the problem is that we are mixing "I'm not asking that
> to be writable" with "I won't let you write". The former belongs
> to the mounting side, the latter - to filesystem.
In addition to this, I would like to be sure that a (local or remote)
file system that is not mounted r/w will not be affected by local activity
(eg. not even if I pull the power cord).
> Notice that setups along the lines "mount /dev/sda5 read-only on
> /home/jail/pub and read-write on /home/ftp/pub" are not that
> unreasonable, so even for local filesystems it might make sense.
>
> IOW, I suspect that right solution would have two separate layers -
> * does anyone get write access under that mountpoint? (VFS)
> * is this fs asked to handle write access and had it agreed with that?
> (filesystem)
Then a mount point could be compared to the notion of view in a database,
right ? Sounds nice.
-- Jean-Marc Saffroy - Research Engineer - Silicomp Research Institute mailto:saffroy@ri.silicomp.fr- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 21:00:23 EST