From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 20 06:32:25 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955E316A41B; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:32:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daichi@ongs.co.jp) Received: from natial.ongs.co.jp (natial.ongs.co.jp [202.216.232.58]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F74613C428; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:32:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from daichi@ongs.co.jp) Received: from parancell.ongs.co.jp (dullmdaler.ongs.co.jp [202.216.232.62]) by natial.ongs.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5EE244C19; Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:32:23 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <46F213F7.3060802@ongs.co.jp> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:32:23 +0900 From: Daichi GOTO User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070803) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kurt Jaeger , emaste@freebsd.org References: <200709141103.18612.h.schmalzbauer@omnisec.de> <20070914110024.G14481@fledge.watson.org> <46EBEA18.3080800@ongs.co.jp> <20070915170104.GF2061@home.c0mplx.org> <46EF6386.9050700@ongs.co.jp> <20070919021644.GG2061@home.c0mplx.org> In-Reply-To: <20070919021644.GG2061@home.c0mplx.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unionfs patchset p19 commit? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:32:25 -0000 Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >>>> I have a big hope to get merged into FreeBSD until >>>> 7-RELEASE. Progress is step by step slowly, but going >>>> forward absolutely. If you have interest in unionfs >>>> improvements, push your passion to re@ and fs@ committers ;-) >>> Did you have a chance to look into this ? >>> >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2007-June/035798.html > >> Already we have fixed above issue. > [...] > > I'm compiling this patch on my test system right now. > > Another issue is userland support for unionfs, e.g. in fstat, > as described on this page: > > http://c0mplx.org/src/fstat-unionfs-patch/ > > Do you plan to analyse/investigate this topic ? It looks like interesting. But your patch has a issues. + /* fprintf(stderr,"found upper vnode\n"); */ + res = ufs_filestat(&upper, fsp); and + /* fprintf(stderr,"found lower vnode\n"); */ + res = ufs_filestat(&lower, fsp); depend on UFS. It must treat both UFS and no UFS fs. And I am not a maintainer of fstat(1). Please contact to maintainer. Perhaps Ed Maste(emaste) is maintainer I suppose from commit log. > There's another topic if one uses unionfs in jail() setups: How to > backup the files, and only those files that a different from > the base ? > > If I traverse a mounted unionfs, how do I know where data is coming > from, the lower mount or the higher mount ? > > If I can't tell the difference, I'll backup quite a lot of stuff > multiple times. > > I've experimented a little and found no easy way to tell lower > from upper unless I open the file (which sounds expensive). > Have a look at http://c0mplx.org/src/isunionfs.c -- does this > sound like a way to go ? The isunionfs.c looks like interesting, too :) But your program is not complete. 'below' option gives it non-correct work. Addition it does not consider unionfs and nullfs combibation or something like that. To check upper/lower completely, you need the same way of your fstat(1) patch. But your idea looks interesting :) Keep your concern of unionfs. To get keep concern is very good for us! -- Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi