Hi!
You mean somebody like, say, a perfectly innocent process working on theThat statement is meant to scare people away from modifying the lower fs :)But isn't it then potential DOS? If you happen to union two filesystems
I tortured unionfs quite a bit, and it can oops but it takes some effort.
and an untrusted user has write access to both original filesystem and
the union, then you say he'd be able to produce oops? That does not
sound very secure to me... And if any secure use of unionfs requires
limitting access to the original trees, then I think it's a good reason
to implement it in unionfs itself. Just my 2 cents.
NFS server or some other client that is oblivious to the existence of
unionfs stacks on your particular machine?
To me, this has always sounded like a showstopper for using unionfs with
a remote filesystem.
Actually, it is worse than that. find / (and updatedb) *will* write to
all the filesystems (atime).
Expecting sysadmins to know/prevent this seems like expecting quite a
lot from them. Sounds like a show stopper to me :-(....