Hi, Long long ago, (March 2000) Alexander Viro replied to Pavel Machek: >> Am I right that from now on each process can have completely different >> view of filesystem like in plan9? > >Almost there ;-) And yes, the only thing we lack for proper namespaces is >the union-directories (clone() bit is trivial). Are there any patches already? If not, where should I start to implement them? Probably related to the first question, what about allowing mount(2) (as a CONFIG-option) for normal user processes when they have a) rw access to the device and b) are the owner/have rw-access to the mountpoint. (There would be at least one security problem: A normal user could mount a loopback ext2 filesystem with panic-on-error (man tune2fs) and then corrupt it) In April, Al Viro wrote: > 1. We should never have more than one dentry for a writable directory. > > Print it and hang it on the wall. It's a fundamental requirement. There is > no way to work around it in our VFS. I tried to invent a scheme that would > allow that for more than a year. And I've done most of namespace-related code > in our VFS since the moment when Bill Hawes stopped working on it, so I suspect > that right now I have the best working knowledge of that stuff. There is no > fscking way to survive multiple dentries for writable directory without major > lossage. Period. Do I understand correctly that this means hardlinks to directories (except . and ..) are fundamentally impossible in Linux? (I'm thinking about trying to write a garbage collected filesystem with hardlinks to directories.) -- Linux 2.4.0-test11 #1 Mon Nov 20 17:19:26 CET 2000 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
