Miklos Szeredi wrote:
Why do we want this?
That depends on who you ask. My answer is this:
'foo.tar.gz/foo/bar' or
'foo.tar.gz/contents/foo/bar'
or something similar.
Others might suggest accessing streams, resource forks or extended
attributes through such an
Bharata B Rao wrote:
Not really. This is called during copyup of a file residing in a lower
layer. And that is done only for regular files.
That is broken.
You should be able to change the permissions on a device node on a layer
that is RO.
so it would copy it up (1. mknod, 2. copy
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:25:39 +0200 Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Define a new fs flag FS_SAFE, which denotes, that unprivileged
mounting of this filesystem may not constitute a security problem.
Since most filesystems haven't been designed with unprivileged
James Morris wrote:
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
I'm not sure if AppArmor can be made good security for the general case,
but it is a model that works in the limited http environment
(eg .htaccess) and is something people can play with and hack on and may
be possible to configure to be
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007, Crispin Cowan wrote:
Please explain why labels are necessary for effective confinement. Many
systems besides AppArmor have used non-label schemes for effective
confinement: TRON, Janus, LIDS, Systrace, BSD Jail, EROS, PSOS, KeyOS,
AS400, to name just a few. This claim seems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This post contains patches to include the AppArmor application security
framework, with request for inclusion.
question in general, these seems like a fairly invasive series of
patches. back when I first started graduate school, I prototyped a
relatively simple
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 10:53:51 -0400 Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The following patches introduce new branch-management code into Unionfs as
well as fix a number of stability issues and resource leaks.
I have a mental note that unionfs is in the stuck
Ihar `Philips` Filipau wrote:
Hi!
[ Please CC: me, I'm not subscribed. Yet. ]
The problem have beaten me before. And now I have it again.
Imaging external hard drive with proper file system (proper ==
supports posix permissions) where files were created by user A and
then it (ext. hard
Erez Zadok wrote:
I didn't know about those patches, but yes, they do sound useful. I'm
curious who needed such functionality before and why. If someone can point
me to those patches, we can look into using them for Unionfs. Thanks.
I asked for it years ago, You can probably guess why :)
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 11:30 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 13:15 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 11:18:52AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Any such
On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 12:03 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
I'm saying that at the very least it should not Oops in these
situations. As to whether or not they are something you want to handle
more gracefully, that is up to you, but Oopses are definitely a
showstopper.
I don't think anyone
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 23:12:53 -0500
Josef 'Jeff' Sipek [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 21:24 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union
On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 13:19 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 14:43:39 -0500 (EST) Shaya Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
Is there vendor interest in unionfs?
MANY live cds seem to use it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-fsdevel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
yes, you're writing a stackable file system (the cs.sunysb gives that
away) and have run a lookup_one_len() on a nfs mounted file system and
that means nd is null.
Erez's group is trying to fix that situation so the intents can be
passed correctly.
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 19:00 -0500, Chaitanya
16 matches
Mail list logo
