Re: [take 3] pohmelfs: call for inclusion

[Evgeniy Polyakov]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:28:12PM +0000, Al Viro (viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> Sigh... I wish it hadn't been an English-speaking maillist; mat is hard to
> translate properly...

Argh, undecency is pretty useful /most of the time/frequently/

> OK, let me try for a printable version: suppose we replace that d_path()
> call with dentry_path() and leave everything else as is; what exactly
> will be broken and how will it break?

I didn't understand you at first. Replacing it with dentry_path() will
not break anything. It was not supposed fs should care about chroot for
this case - every application (including chrooted) writes into own
namespace, so if it changes root, it is on its own...

> > When object was written via remounted path, then it is a problem for
> > those who made a setup - this ugly hack only 'works' in specially
> > crafted environment, which provides its pros and requires fair price of
> > cons.
> 
> _What_ remounted path?  I'm not talking about bindings at all...

I believe you will?

Actually if this useful hack is so much a PITA I will drop it. Or fix
with dentry_path() instead. It doesn't really deserve _that_ much.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/