Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 15:21:07 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@freefall.freebsd.org> Cc: current@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: mount_union Message-ID: <9605171921.AA06622@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199605171822.LAA07463@freefall.freebsd.org> References: <199605171822.LAA07463@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Fri, 17 May 1996 11:22:26 -0700 (PDT), Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@freefall.freebsd.org> said: > 1. Union mounts don't work anyways. > 2. When they do work in Lite2, mount_union won't be setuid root. > 3. If the user want to try out union mounts now, he can su and do it. NB: `union mount' != `unionfs'. Unfortunately, even the 4.4 book preserves this linguistic inaccuracy. Support for `union mounts' (i.e., `MNT_UNION') has been present for a long time, and so far as I am aware works just fine (at least, I have not seen any crashes which can be traced to this code; I haven't used it in a while and it might be broken now). (If anyone thinks it doesn't work, I'd like to hear about it.) This is a completely different animal from `unionfs' (MOUNT_UNION) which really ought to be called something like `translucentfs' but that would be too long. Different purposes, different mechanism, sometimes similar results. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9605171921.AA06622>