From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 12 21:17:27 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A231065678; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:17:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from to.my.trociny@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gx0-f182.google.com (mail-gx0-f182.google.com [209.85.161.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 332608FC12; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ggki1 with SMTP id i1so1684841ggk.13 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:17:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=L8sCeyGwQhnfQn5/Hb9RQm+YGZKkARq5zBnEhGMSXQQ=; b=TBku7DnQmJ3j8MveNCKytvW3I1DjDPHMxprkwgUNWuBGEjvC4ZN9oSjqKFvV1ZfJne 6fBIdl18PH44x+ACP+wyx0FFzoOoKP3CeNgp67PxpdG7Dh5yxJb3N4DoPI+OgyhgWIPz 6hlSUBVCGLV5EUcTcfsAt4lKLW59FckgTg4K8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.77.195 with SMTP id u3mr2172199igw.29.1326403046295; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:17:26 -0800 (PST) Sender: to.my.trociny@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.143.141 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:17:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <86fwfnti5t.fsf@kopusha.home.net> References: <86sjjobzmn.fsf@kopusha.home.net> <86fwfnti5t.fsf@kopusha.home.net> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:17:26 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: uEvabdR2S0e_8uRHgjuMHFX3zDk Message-ID: From: Mikolaj Golub To: "Robert N. M. Watson" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Kostik Belousov , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unix domain sockets on nullfs(5) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:17:27 -0000 On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Mikolaj Golub wrote= : > > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:02:34 +0000 Robert N. M. Watson wrote: > > =A0RNMW> (1) I don't think the new behaviour should be optional -- it was= always > =A0RNMW> the intent that nullfs pass through all behaviours to the underl= ying > =A0RNMW> layer, it's just that certain edge cases didn't appear in the or= iginal > =A0RNMW> implementation. Memory mapping was fixed a few years ago using s= imilar > =A0RNMW> techniques. This will significantly reduce the complexity of you= r > =A0RNMW> patch, and also avoid user confusion since it will now behave "a= s > =A0RNMW> expected". Certainly, mention in future release notes would be > =A0RNMW> appropriate, however. > > I don't mind having only the new behavior, as I can't imagine where I wou= ld > need a nullfs with nosobypass option mounted and I also like when things = are > simple :-). > > On the other hand there might be people who relied on the old behavior an= d who > would be surprised if it had changed. > > So, if other people agree I will remove the old behaviour to make the pat= ch > simpler. Another option would be to have sobypass by default with possibi= lity > to (re)mount fs with nosobypass. > If we agree to have only the new behavior then nullfs won't need modificati= on at all, it will work as expected automatically. The patch could be (with up= dated locking for the connect case): http://people.freebsd.org/~trociny/VOP_UNP.1.patch