From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965067AbVHJLLT (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:11:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965071AbVHJLLS (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:11:18 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:42216 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965067AbVHJLLS (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:11:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:11:10 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Al Viro , David Teigland , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] GFS Message-ID: <20050810111110.GA6878@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Lars Marowsky-Bree , Al Viro , David Teigland , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-cluster@redhat.com References: <20050802071828.GA11217@redhat.com> <20050809152045.GT29811@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050810070309.GA2415@infradead.org> <20050810103041.GB4634@marowsky-bree.de> <20050810103256.GA6127@infradead.org> <20050810103424.GC4634@marowsky-bree.de> <20050810105450.GA6519@infradead.org> <20050810110259.GE4634@marowsky-bree.de> <20050810110511.GA6728@infradead.org> <20050810110917.GG4634@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050810110917.GG4634@marowsky-bree.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:09:17PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2005-08-10T12:05:11, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > What would a syntax look like which in your opinion does not remove > > > totally valid symlink targets for magic mushroom bullshit? Prefix with > > > // (which, according to POSIX, allows for implementation-defined > > > behaviour)? Something else, not allowed in a regular pathname? > > None. just don't do it. Use bindmount, they're cheap and have sane > > defined semtantics. > > So for every directoy hiearchy on a shared filesystem, each user needs > to have the complete list of bindmounts needed, and automatically resync > that across all nodes when a new one is added or removed? And then have > that executed by root, because a regular user can't? Do it in an initscripts and let users simply not do it, they shouldn't even know what kind of filesystem they are on.