From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750731AbWGORi4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:38:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750726AbWGORi4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:38:56 -0400 Received: from [83.101.158.20] ([83.101.158.20]:39688 "EHLO raad.intranet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750728AbWGORiz (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jul 2006 13:38:55 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 5/7] add user namespace Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:39:50 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200607152039.50786.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 06:35 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > I hope the confusion has passed for Trond. My impression was he > > figured this was per process data so it didn't make sense any where > > near a filesystem, and the superblock was the last place it should > > be. > > You are still using the wrong abstraction. Data that is not global to > the entire machine has absolutely _no_ place being put into the > superblock. It doesn't matter if it is process-specific, > container-specific or whatever-else-specific, it will still be vetoed. > > If your real problem is uid/gid mapping on top of generic filesystems, > then have you looked into the *BSD solution of using a stackable > filesystem (i.e. umapfs)? A stackable FS is really overkill here, when all that is needed is a simple mapping. An easy solution would be, to allow for perMount Handlers via hooks into the VFS, as was suggested in the '[RFC] VFS: FS CoW using redirection' thread. Thanks! -- Al