Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:27:16PM +0930, David Newall wrote: > >Learn to read. Linux has never allowed that. Most of the Unix systems > >do not allow that. > > I did read the claim and it is ambiguous, in that it can reasonably be > read to mean that most UNIX systems never allowed such

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 06:07:45AM +0930, David Newall wrote: considerations of this whole scheme. Linux, like most Unix systems, has never allowed hard links to directories for a number of reasons; The claim is wrong. UNIX systems have traditionally allowed the

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 06:07:45AM +0930, David Newall wrote: > >considerations of this whole scheme. Linux, like most Unix systems, > >has never allowed hard links to directories for a number of reasons; > > The claim is wrong. UNIX systems have traditionally allowed the > superuser to create

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

Jaroslav Sykora wrote: If anybody can think of any other solution of the "redirector problem", possibly even non-kernel based one, let me know and I'd be glad :-) If I understand your problem, you wish to treat an archive file as if it was a directory. Thus, in the ideal situation, you could

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 22:10, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: > >A minor implementation problem with chrooted environment is that the >FUSE VFS server must be run with root privileges to allow setuid >programs on the mounted filesystems. But it's certainly doable. You would not want user-supplied filesystems to

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Thursday 18 of October 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> > > >> >The '^' is an escape character and it tells the computer to treat the > >> >file as a directory. > >> > >> But what you could do is: write a FUSE fs that mirrors the lower content > >> (lofs/fuseloop/however it was named) and

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 19 2007 05:32, David Newall wrote: > > The claim is wrong. UNIX systems have traditionally allowed the > superuser to create hard links to directories. See link(2) for > 2.10BSD > . > Having got that wrong throws doubt on the

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 19:07, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: >> On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: >> >Hello, >> > >> >Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program >> >source >> >code. We want to do this: >> >cat hello.zip^/hello.c >> >gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Thursday 18 of October 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: > >Hello, > > > >Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program > >source > >code. We want to do this: > > cat hello.zip^/hello.c > > gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

David Newall wrote: David Newall wrote: Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. Wouldn't you do this as a user space

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

David Newall wrote: Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. Wouldn't you do this as a user space filesystem? Which is what you

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. Wouldn't you do this as a user space filesystem? - To unsubscribe from this

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: >Hello, > >Let's say we have an archive file "hello.zip" with a hello world program source >code. We want to do this: > cat hello.zip^/hello.c > gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello > etc.. > >The '^' is an escape character and it tells

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Hello, Let's say we have an archive file hello.zip with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. The '^' is an escape character and it tells the computer

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Let's say we have an archive file hello.zip with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. Wouldn't you do this as a user space filesystem? - To unsubscribe from this

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

David Newall wrote: Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Let's say we have an archive file hello.zip with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. Wouldn't you do this as a user space filesystem? Which is what you

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

David Newall wrote: David Newall wrote: Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Let's say we have an archive file hello.zip with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. Wouldn't you do this as a user space filesystem?

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Thursday 18 of October 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Hello, Let's say we have an archive file hello.zip with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc..

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 19:07, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: On Oct 18 2007 17:21, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: Hello, Let's say we have an archive file hello.zip with a hello world program source code. We want to do this: cat hello.zip^/hello.c gcc hello.zip^/hello.c -o hello etc.. The '^'

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 18 2007 22:10, Jaroslav Sykora wrote: A minor implementation problem with chrooted environment is that the FUSE VFS server must be run with root privileges to allow setuid programs on the mounted filesystems. But it's certainly doable. You would not want user-supplied filesystems to

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Oct 19 2007 05:32, David Newall wrote: The claim is wrong. UNIX systems have traditionally allowed the superuser to create hard links to directories. See link(2) for 2.10BSD http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=linksektion=2manpath=2.10+BSD. Having got that wrong throws doubt on

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Thursday 18 of October 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote: The '^' is an escape character and it tells the computer to treat the file as a directory. But what you could do is: write a FUSE fs that mirrors the lower content (lofs/fuseloop/however it was named) and expands .zip files as

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

Jaroslav Sykora wrote: If anybody can think of any other solution of the redirector problem, possibly even non-kernel based one, let me know and I'd be glad :-) If I understand your problem, you wish to treat an archive file as if it was a directory. Thus, in the ideal situation, you could

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 06:07:45AM +0930, David Newall wrote: considerations of this whole scheme. Linux, like most Unix systems, has never allowed hard links to directories for a number of reasons; The claim is wrong. UNIX systems have traditionally allowed the superuser to create hard

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:27:16PM +0930, David Newall wrote: Learn to read. Linux has never allowed that. Most of the Unix systems do not allow that. I did read the claim and it is ambiguous, in that it can reasonably be read to mean that most UNIX systems never allowed such links,

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Shadow directories

Al Viro wrote: On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 06:07:45AM +0930, David Newall wrote: considerations of this whole scheme. Linux, like most Unix systems, has never allowed hard links to directories for a number of reasons; The claim is wrong. UNIX systems have traditionally allowed the