Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: FUSE merging? | From | Miklos Szeredi <> | Date | Sun, 03 Jul 2005 16:03:49 +0200 |
| |
> > There's > > nothing magic about that. It's as if it was N different servers for N > > different clients, only more effective. > > Not entirely, there is a UID dependancy.
Ahh, so there is.
Does it actually work? I doubt it. The VFS won't allow two different dentries to refer to the same name. And without that, how would you have several inodes for a single name?
> > I think what you call namespace invariance is basically true for all > > existing filesystems. There could be a filesystem which returns > > different directory contents based on whatever it wants, but it can't > > return a different "dentry" for the same name. > > This is not what I mean. The directory contents itself must be identical > for every user. And every name must of course correspond with only one > dentry. That's name-space invariance IMO.
OK.
> > > IMHO The namespace argument against FUSE is weak for multiple > > > reasons. The only variancy I see is when crossing the mount > > > point. And that disappears once EACCES is returned when > > > non-ptraceable processes try to cross it. > > > > Yes, but still this is just a difference in permission, and not a > > difference in namespace. > > Exactly. And such a difference in permission already exists for (sane) > networked file systems such as NFS with "squash_root" in effect on > the server.
Agreed.
Miklos - 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/
| |