This means we can't reliably detect a read-only NFS export.
2. Modifying a Unionfs branch directly, while the union is mounted, is
- currently unsupported. We have tested Unionfs under such conditions, and
- fixed any bugs we found (Unionfs comes with an extensive regression test
- suite). However, it may still be possible that changes made to lower
- branches directly could cause cache incoherency which, in the worst case,
- may case an oops. We are currently addressing this problem for Unionfs
- and also generically for all stackable file systems, by handing mmap and
+ currently unsupported, because it could cause a cache incoherency between
+ the union layer and the lower file systems (for that reason, Unionfs
+ currently prohibits using branches which overlap with each other, even
+ partially). We have tested Unionfs under such conditions, and fixed any
+ bugs we found (Unionfs comes with an extensive regression test suite).
+ However, it may still be possible that changes made to lower branches
+ directly could cause cache incoherency which, in the worst case, may case
+ an oops. We are currently addressing this problem for Unionfs and also
+ generically for all stackable file systems, by handling mmap and
introducing small VFS/MM changes that would allow a file system to handle
cache coherency correctly.
3. Unionfs should not use lookup_one_len() on the underlying f/s as it
confuses NFS. Currently, unionfs_lookup() passes lookup intents to the
lower file-system, this eliminates part of the problem. The remaining
- calls to lookup_one_len may need to be changed to pass an intent.
+ calls to lookup_one_len may need to be changed to pass an intent. We are
+ currently introducing VFS changes to fs/namei.c's do_path_lookup() to
+ allow proper file lookup and opening in stackable file systems.
For more information, see <http://unionfs.filesystems.org/>.
BUG_ON(branches != (hidden_root_info->bend + 1));
- /* ensure that no overlaps exist in the branches */
+ /*
+ * Ensure that no overlaps exist in the branches.
+ *
+ * This test is required because the Linux kernel has no support
+ * currently for ensuring coherency between stackable layers and
+ * branches. If we were to allow overlapping branches, it would be
+ * possible, for example, to delete a file via one branch, which
+ * would not be reflected in another branch. Such incoherency could
+ * lead to inconsistencies and even kernel oopses. Rather than
+ * implement hacks to work around some of these cache-coherency
+ * problems, we prevent branch overlapping, for now. A complete
+ * solution will involve proper kernel/VFS support for cache
+ * coherency, at which time we could safely remove this
+ * branch-overlapping test.
+ */
for (i = 0; i < branches; i++) {
for (j = i + 1; j < branches; j++) {
dent1 = hidden_root_info->lower_paths[i].dentry;