Jason Pyeron wrote on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:03:49 -0400:
> Any ideas what the "dangerous" inode confusion is about? Is it relevant today?
I have no idea. I think the proposed problem is that the client doesn't know
that it's traversing filesystems, so, the same inode number on filesystem / and
/b is each time the inode number on /. I have no idea if this can actually
happen or how this is worked out or if it is still a problem.
But I think the way it is now by default is not a good solution. As I wrote you
can work and copy to these faked folders and they disappear and reappear with
mounting although they are actually somewhere on the local filesystem. It looks
like the mounting creates a local directory listing that is only available when
it's mounted. The way it works without nohide is really able to trick you to
think you are writing to the remote side, but you aren't. I think this is
dangerous. They should indeed have *hidden* those folders instead of faking
them. The talk about "hidden" is wrong in my eyes. They do not hide they pretend
things that are not there.
>From that perspective I think using nohide is the better option. But I don't
know if that "inode problem" could really hit or not. I haven't seen it so far.
I think what would be a bad idea is to cross-mount the nfs shares themselves,
but this is prevented unless you explicitely export them.
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
