Hello,
I would like to start a discussion about some basic details
implementation of the unionmount project.
Firstly, the implementation was suggested in two ways: as a stand-alone
translator and as a series of extensions to lib{net,disk}fs
libraries. These two approaches have there advantages and
disadvantages. Implementing unionmount functionality in a stand-alone
translator will involve an extra layer of translation (which would often
mean an extra context switch in each operation), but will be more
flexible in the meaning that to modify parts of functionality will
require rebuilding a single translator. OTOH, implementing unionmount as
extensions to translator libraries would mean faster operation and
automatic inclusion of the functionality in *every* existing
translators, but modifying something would require more effort. I am
generally inclined to implement the functionality as a stand-alone
translator first (though things might well show that this variant of
implementation would be best (my personal opinion)), and moving things
to lib{net,disk}fs later on.
Let me first expose my understanding of the term ``unionmount
functionality''. Usually (when doing settrans) the translator being set
on a node (directory) foo/ obscures the directory structure lying under
foo/. The essence of the unionmount idea here is to mount the translator
is such a way that the filesystem the translator makes public *merge*
with the underlying filesystem.
As far as the stand-alone implementation is concerned, I think we should
borrow as much ideas as possible from unionfs. Firstly, unionmount
should most probably be a libnetfs-based translator. Now let us go
further: unionmount is expected to merge the filesystem on which it sits
with the filesystem exposed by the translator it is asked to start in
unionmount mode (further referred to as ``the Translator''). When
unionmount is starting, it has (of course) a port to the underlying
node, which means that it has full access to its underlying
filesystem. Now, it can create a shadow node, mirroring the underlying
node and then set the Translator on this shadow node. The purpose of
this is to keep the Translator away from the real underlying node,
giving it at the same time all the information it should require.
One of the advantages of this approach is that it reuses the ideas
implemented in unionfs to the maximum: actually, only the startup part
should differ from the one in unionfs. Probably, I could even kind of
fork off the unionfs code base, modify the starting sequence and obtain
the unionmount translator. Taking into consideration that unionfs has
some features of which we are in no need and that it doesn't (yet) build
on my (QEMU) Debian/Hurd, I could spend a day on tailoring unionfs to
our needs and another day (at most) on modifying the resulting
translator to act like unionmount.
This advantage could make the stand-alone approach cheap to implement,
at least as a proof-of-concept thing. Also this is why consider it
necessary to pay this approach worthy attention.
The second approach (about modifying the translator libraries) may prove
trickier. First of all, I don't really know the internals of libdiskfs,
so I will base my reasoning about the second approach on libnetfs,
hoping that libdiskfs will not prove very much different. The idea is to
modify the default implementation of netfs_S_dir_lookup in such a way
that it will yield control to the user-defined netfs_attempt_lookup only
in the case the requested file name could not be found under the
underlying node. (Obviously, netfs_attempt_lookup can have priority
instead, thus allowing the translator to obscure some of the underlying
nodes).
This approach will require adding some user-modifiable flag to the
corresponding translator library that will allow to switch on and off
this functionality, because not all translators would be happy running
in unionmount mode.
The problem of this approach is that we go away from modularity, loading
lib{net,disk}fs with functionality for which they were not initially
designed. The immediate problem I can see is that the attempt to rebuild
an existing translator against a modified library will not always be a
trivial task (at least in the case of libnetfs): many libnetfs-based
translators override the default functionality of netfs_S_dir_lookup, so
making them union-mount-aware will result in modifying the corresponding
sections of their code.
As I have already mentioned, I am personally more inclined to implement
the unionmount functionality as a stand-alone translator first, because
this approach preserves modularity. I am aware of the performance issue
about extra context switches, but if the unionmount translator will not
give off ports to its own nodes, but ports to *external* nodes
(underlying filesystem nodes or those published by the Translator), it
will not take part in the frequent (and most time-critical) I/O
operations and act as an initial source of ports only. I think it is
reasonable for unionmount not to create proxy nodes (in nsmux
terminology), because I cannot presently invent a use case where it will
need control over the ports it gave off to the client.
Regards,
scolobb
