On Jan 8 2007 14:43, Shaya Potter wrote: > On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500 >> "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jsipek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > +Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is >> > +mounted, is currently unsupported. >> >> Does this mean that if I have /a/b/ and /c/d/ unionised under >> /mnt/union, I am not allowed to alter anything under /a/b/ >> and /c/d/? That I may only alter stuff under /mnt/union? >> >> If so, that sounds like a significant limitation. > > haven't we been through this? It's the same thing as > modifying a block device while a file system is using it. > Now, when unionfs gets confused, it shouldn't oops, but would > one expect ext3 to allow one to modify its backing store while > its using it? (Blunt counter-example: Modifying the underlying filesystem of an NFS import does not break. But I agree with Shaya.) Well it was suggested to make /a/b and /c/d read-only while the union is mounted, using a ro bind mount, what about it? (To catch unwanted tampering with the lowlevels) -`J' -- - 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
