Re: exact semantics of union mounts (and TRYEMULROOT)

Date:Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:31:36 -0400 (EDT) From:Mouse Message-ID: <201707111831.oaa05...@stone.rodents-montreal.org> | >> I don't think so, directory ops all happen at the upper level (or | >> nowhere). | > (it is also not what we

Re: exact semantics of union mounts (and TRYEMULROOT)

>> I don't think so, directory ops all happen at the upper level (or >> nowhere). > (it is also not what we currently do, [...]) No, it's not. But it's pretty close to, and I think that it actually was intended to mean "_modifying_ directory ops", ie, those which show EROFS when attempted on a

Re: exact semantics of union mounts (and TRYEMULROOT)

[one message] >>> Union mounts [...] >> I don't think so, directory ops all happen at the upper level (or >> nowhere). > I don't think that's what Plan 9 does [...] [another message] >> Also, the 5.2 mount(8) manpage says >> union [...] >> [...], it sounds to me as though the

Re: exact semantics of union mounts (and TRYEMULROOT)

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 02:25:16AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > | Union mounts are complicated in this regard because when the directory > | involved is a union mount point, some layer of the union mount needs > | to be chosen to invoke the filesystem-level operation; > > I don't think

Re: exact semantics of union mounts (and TRYEMULROOT)

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 02:07:35PM -0400, Mouse wrote: > > So I think these should behave as follows: > > Whiteouts complicate this. I can't recall whether whiteouts are -o > union or -t union, but they can occur; even if they are strictly -t > union, a plain filesystem that got a whiteout

Re: IPfilter panic in 7.1

In article <1n8zh65.79uodgaqcnrcm%m...@netbsd.org>, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote: >Hi > >I am hit by frequent IPfilter panics on a firewall setup after upgrading >to 7.1. Is it something someone else experienced? Sounds like a bug we squashed in head with a patch from FreeBSD.