search

sfjro / aufs-standalone

27 stars 14 forks source link

Build fails when ACL is not enabled #16

Closed justablob closed 2 years ago

justablob commented 2 years ago

Hello,

we have observed a build failure when FS ACLs are not enabled in the kernel config. The issue was fixed by modifying line 444 in fs/aufs/fsctx.c:

- au_ignore_flag("acl"),
+ au_ignore_flag("acl", Opt_ignore_silent),
sfjro commented 2 years ago

Hello Blobbo,

The Blobbo:

we have observed a build failure when FS ACLs are not enabled in the kernel config. The issue was fixed by modifying line 444 in fs/aufs/fsctx.c:

- au_ignore_flag("acl"),
+ au_ignore_flag("acl", Opt_ignore_silent),

Thanks for the report. You are totally right. That is my bonehead mistake. I am going to release the fix on next Monday.

J. R. Okajima

justablob commented 2 years ago

Hey sjfro,

No biggie, it was simple enough to work around. I would've created a pull request but you have so many branches :p

Thanks in advance for the fix!

justablob commented 2 years ago

By the way, I'm just wondering, do you ever intend on mainlining aufs? It's more feature-rich than all other union/overlay filesystems I can find and I'd love to see it used more. For example, we're currently building an embedded system that relies on aufs for its package management and updating capabilities, where it's the only filesystem that includes all features we need.

sfjro commented 2 years ago

------- Blind-Carbon-Copy

From: "J. R. Okajima" @.> To: @. Subject: aufs5 GIT release MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: @.> Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2022 09:32:50 +0900 Message-ID: @.>

o bugfix When CONFIG_FS_POSIX_ACL is disabled, a syntax error in aufs code appears. Reported and fixed by The Blobbo. And I changed his patch just a little bit.

J. R. Okajima

------- End of Blind-Carbon-Copy

sfjro commented 2 years ago

The Blobbo:

By the way, I'm just wondering, do you ever intend on mainlining aufs? It's more feature-rich than all other union/overlay filesystems I can find and I'd love to see it used more. For example, we're currently building an embedded system that relies on aufs for its package management and updating capabilities, where it's the only filesystem that includes all features we need.

Waoh, that reminds me an aufs history, also I am glad to know that aufs is helping you.

Here I quote a part of aufs README file,

Note: it becomes clear that "Aufs was rejected. Let's give it up." According to Christoph Hellwig, linux rejects all union-type filesystems but UnionMount. http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123938533724484&w=2

PS. Al Viro seems have a plan to merge aufs as well as overlayfs and UnionMount, and he pointed out an issue around a directory mutex lock and aufs addressed it. But it is still unsure whether aufs will be merged (or any other union solution). http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136312705029295&w=1

Later, overlayfs was merged into mainline and many aufs users switched to it. But some users came back to aufs. The reason is very similar to yours. It was many years from now.

J. R. Okajima

justablob commented 2 years ago

sjfro,

Thank you for your replies and for the quick fix.

Also, I'm sad to hear aufs was rejected. Those messages you sent are from many years ago - any chance things would be different today?