Re: [PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion

[J. R. Okajima]

Erez Zadok:
> ...  Asking =
> overlayfs or other stackable file systems to solve this multi-layer =
> coherency perfectly is somewhat ridiculous: we don't expect file systems =
> like ext3 to detect and correctly handle changes to lower devices =97 =
> i.e., if someone hand-edited direct blocks in /dev/sda1, do we?

I agree with you if we discuss about union-type-mount, which handles a
block device as its member. As long as the layered-fs handles a
directory (mounted filesystem) as its member, it is obviously right that
users expect the modification on the member fs (by-passing a union) is
available.

Of course I agree it brings complication to us, and I'd suggest three
level options to support this issue.
- detect the direct changes and reflect it to union (hardest option)
- skip the detection, but verify the parent-child relationship or more
  at least. (this is something like overlayfs is trying to do)
- skip both of the detection and verification (lowest option)
  this option depends how user sets up the union and its member. if user
  hides the members totally by over-mounting an empty dir on the member
  (or something), then he can specify this option. otherwise, this
  option is dangerous. also some symlinks may not work.
  # mkdir /hide
  # mount -o upper=/rw,lower=/ro none /union
  # mount -o bind /hide /rw
  # mount -o bind /hide /ro


J. R. Okajima
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/