On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:42:33AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:37:42PM -0500, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: > > The only fields that we have to watch out for are the dentry and vfsmount. > > Additionally, this makes Unionfs gentler on the stack as nameidata is rather > > large. > > That's onviously not true at all. To handle any filesystems using intents > (e.g. NFSv4) you need to do much more. Then again doing things correctly > doesn't seem to be interesting to the stackable filesystems crowd an this > problem has been constantly ignored over the last year, including merging > ecryptfs which has been broken in the same way. > > Folks, if you want your stackable filesystem toys taken seriously you > need to fix these kind of issues instead of talking them away. And yes, > this will involve some surgery to the VFS. Indeed. I asked around (#linuxfs) and it seemed that restoring the dentry/vfsmount was sufficient for the purpose of passing intents down. If this is not the case, I'll revert the patch to do the full namei allocation. Josef "Jeff" Sipek. -- Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. - Edsger Dijkstra - 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
