Sedat Dilek:
> The other part to run a Linux live-system is a "Union FileSystem" -
> this part is missing (speaking of upstream).
>
> Since years AUFS seems to be the choice #1 in a lot of distros to
> workaround the problem.
> NOTE: AUFS was rejected from upstream (to say not accepted).
Exactly.
The reason was that linux rejects all union-type filesystems but
UnionMount (which is union-type mount).
Later, the development of UnionMount seems to be almost stopped. The
essential design of overlayfs is based upon UnionMount, and I have
pointed out several issues such as
- for users, the inode number may change silently. eg. copy-up.
- hardlinks may break by copy-up.
- read(2) may get an obsoleted filedata (fstat(2) for metadata too).
- fcntl(F_SETLK) may be broken by copy-up.
- unnecessary copy-up may happen, for example mmap(MAP_PRIVATE) after
open(O_RDWR).
- Later I noticed one more thing. /proc/PID/{fd/,exe} may not work
correctly for overlayfs ...
- etc...
They are called "unPOSIXy behavior", and unforunately many of them are
NOT seem to be addressed in recent patches either.
Also I have posted
If the development of UnionMount is really stopped, then I'd ask people
to consider merging aufs as well as overlayfs.
but I am not sure whether LKML people are still waiting for UnionMount
and rejecting aufs.
J. R. Okajima
--
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
