Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 06:35 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I hope the confusion has passed for Trond. My impression was he > > figured this was per process data so it didn't make sense any where > > near a filesystem, and the superblock was the last place it should > > be. > > You are still using the wrong abstraction. Data that is not global to > the entire machine has absolutely _no_ place being put into the > superblock. It doesn't matter if it is process-specific, > container-specific or whatever-else-specific, it will still be vetoed. > > If your real problem is uid/gid mapping on top of generic filesystems, > then have you looked into the *BSD solution of using a stackable > filesystem (i.e. umapfs)? A stackable FS is really overkill here, when all that is needed is a simple mapping. An easy solution would be, to allow for perMount Handlers via hooks into the VFS, as was suggested in the '[RFC] VFS: FS CoW using redirection' thread. Thanks! -- Al - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
