Debian Bug report logs - #608121
schroot: Add support for unionfs-fuse

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: schroot: Add support for unionfs-fuse

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:02:06 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: schroot
Version: 1.4.16-1
Severity: wishlist

Since the kernels in experimental do not ship aufs, it would be
great if you could add support for unionfs-fuse as well. I have
the following patch applied in my setup.d script to automatically
fall back to unionfs-fuse if the native solution is not available,
as that allows me to build fast when running under 2.6.32 and use
the slower FUSE-based way when running newer kernels.

diff --git a/schroot/setup.d/10mount b/schroot/setup.d/10mount
index 29636d1..01810e6 100755
--- a/schroot/setup.d/10mount
+++ b/schroot/setup.d/10mount
@@ -95,10 +95,16 @@ do_mount_fs_union()
        esac
     fi
 
-    info "Using '$CHROOT_UNION_TYPE' for filesystem union"
-
-    # Try mounting fs
-    mount -t "$CHROOT_UNION_TYPE" -o "$CHROOT_UNION_MOUNT_OPTIONS" "$CHROOT_NAME" "$1"
+    if modinfo "$CHROOT_UNION_TYPE" 2>/dev/null >/dev/null ||
+       grep "\<$CHROOT_UNION_TYPE\>" /proc/filesystems; then
+       info "Using '$CHROOT_UNION_TYPE' for filesystem union"
+       mount -t "$CHROOT_UNION_TYPE" -o "$CHROOT_UNION_MOUNT_OPTIONS" "$CHROOT_NAME" "$1"
+    else
+       info "Using 'unionfs-fuse' instead of '$CHROOT_UNION_TYPE' for filesystem union"
+       unionfs-fuse -o cow,allow_other,suid,dev \
+                     ${CHROOT_UNION_OVERLAY_DIRECTORY}=RW:${CHROOT_UNION_UNDERLAY_DIRECTORY}=RO \
+                     "$1"
+    fi
 }
 
 if [ "$VERBOSE" = "verbose" ]; then

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (350, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.37-rc5-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages schroot depends on:
ii  libboost-filesystem1.42.0     1.42.0-4   filesystem operations (portable pa
ii  libboost-program-options1.42. 1.42.0-4   program options library for C++
ii  libboost-regex1.42.0          1.42.0-4   regular expression library for C++
ii  libboost-system1.42.0         1.42.0-4   Operating system (e.g. diagnostics
ii  libc6                         2.11.2-7   Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib
ii  libgcc1                       1:4.5.2-1  GCC support library
ii  liblockdev1                   1.0.3-1.4  Run-time shared library for lockin
ii  libpam0g                      1.1.1-6.1  Pluggable Authentication Modules l
ii  libstdc++6                    4.5.2-1    The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  libuuid1                      2.17.2-3.3 Universally Unique ID library
ii  schroot-common                1.4.16-1   common files for schroot

schroot recommends no packages.

Versions of packages schroot suggests:
pn  aufs-modules | unionfs-m <none>          (no description available)
ii  btrfs-tools              0.19+20100601-3 Checksumming Copy on Write Filesys
ii  debootstrap              1.0.26          Bootstrap a basic Debian system
pn  lvm2                     <none>          (no description available)
ii  unzip                    6.0-4           De-archiver for .zip files

-- Configuration Files:
/etc/schroot/default/nssdatabases changed [not included]
/etc/schroot/desktop/nssdatabases changed [not included]
/etc/schroot/minimal/nssdatabases changed [not included]
/etc/schroot/sbuild/nssdatabases changed [not included]
/etc/schroot/schroot.conf changed [not included]
/etc/schroot/setup.d/10mount changed [not included]

-- no debconf information

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net>

To: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>, 608121@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#608121: schroot: Add support for unionfs-fuse

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 16:16:03 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:02:06PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Package: schroot
> Version: 1.4.16-1
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Since the kernels in experimental do not ship aufs, it would be
> great if you could add support for unionfs-fuse as well. I have
> the following patch applied in my setup.d script to automatically
> fall back to unionfs-fuse if the native solution is not available,
> as that allows me to build fast when running under 2.6.32 and use
> the slower FUSE-based way when running newer kernels.

Thanks for the patch.  While it's a neat way to use the fallback,
I'm not happy with the hardcoding in the setup script, which goes
against the general design of the scripts (they are configured
using environment variables passed in from the schroot executable;
they don't dictate much policy themselves).

We can support it natively with "union-type=unionfs-fuse" in the
configuration file providing that we can update the mount options
to use fuse.  As a non-fuse user, is it possible to do the mount
with mount(8) rather than running "unionfs-fuse" directly?


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>

To: 608121@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#608121: schroot: Add support for unionfs-fuse

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:55:39 +0100

On Mi, 2010-12-29 at 16:16 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:02:06PM +0100, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Package: schroot
> > Version: 1.4.16-1
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > Since the kernels in experimental do not ship aufs, it would be
> > great if you could add support for unionfs-fuse as well. I have
> > the following patch applied in my setup.d script to automatically
> > fall back to unionfs-fuse if the native solution is not available,
> > as that allows me to build fast when running under 2.6.32 and use
> > the slower FUSE-based way when running newer kernels.
> 
> Thanks for the patch.  While it's a neat way to use the fallback,
> I'm not happy with the hardcoding in the setup script, which goes
> against the general design of the scripts (they are configured
> using environment variables passed in from the schroot executable;
> they don't dictate much policy themselves).
How about making union-type a list instead and passing the first
available one to the scripts? This way, we can have a wonderful fallback
solution, and no policy in the script.

> We can support it natively with "union-type=unionfs-fuse" in the
> configuration file providing that we can update the mount options
> to use fuse.  As a non-fuse user, is it possible to do the mount
> with mount(8) rather than running "unionfs-fuse" directly?

It is possible to set the fs type to fuse and mount like that (d1 + d2
on d):
  mount -t fuse -o cow,suid,dev,allow_other "unionfs-fuse#d1=RW:d2=RO" d

In theory, it would be easier if unionfs-fuse installed something like
the following mount helper:

        #!/bin/bash
        label=$1
        mpoint=$2
        shift 3
        dirs=${@##*,dirs=}
        dirs=${dirs/,/:}
        mount.fuse "unionfs-fuse#$dirs" "$mpoint" -o ${@%%,dirs=*}

then you could just mount it like unionfs (perhaps with +allow_other
option):
   mount -t unionfs-fuse -o allow_other,dirs=d1=rw,d2=ro label mpoint


-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

Message #20 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Shanto <shanto@hotmail.com>

To: 608121@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#608121: schroot: Add support for, unionfs-fuse

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:04:02 +0600

Has there been any progress on this? How could I help?

mount -t fuse -o cow,suid,dev,allow_other "unionfs-fuse#d1=RW:d2=RO"

While the above command should work in theory, schroot itself doesn't 
allow any value for union-type other than aufs and unionfs:

E: /etc/schroot/chroot.d/abf.conf: line 8 [abf32] union-type: Unknown 
filesystem union type ‘fuse’
E: /etc/schroot/chroot.d/abf.conf: line 8 [abf32] union-type: Unknown 
filesystem union type ‘unionfs-fuse’

I think, we need schroot program to allow either of fuse or unions-fuse. 
Once schroot accepts those union-types, it would be only a matter of 
passing proper configuration directives to have unionfs-fuse and/or 
other fuse implementations.

Thanks,
Shanto

Message #25 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net>

To: Shanto <shanto@hotmail.com>, 608121@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Jan-Marek Glogowski <glogow@fbihome.de>

Subject: Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#608121: schroot: Add support for, unionfs-fuse

Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:39:07 +0000

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 05:04:02AM +0600, Shanto wrote:
> Has there been any progress on this? How could I help?
> 
> mount -t fuse -o cow,suid,dev,allow_other "unionfs-fuse#d1=RW:d2=RO"
> 
> While the above command should work in theory, schroot itself
> doesn't allow any value for union-type other than aufs and unionfs:
> 
> E: /etc/schroot/chroot.d/abf.conf: line 8 [abf32] union-type:
> Unknown filesystem union type ‘fuse’
> E: /etc/schroot/chroot.d/abf.conf: line 8 [abf32] union-type:
> Unknown filesystem union type ‘unionfs-fuse’
> 
> I think, we need schroot program to allow either of fuse or
> unions-fuse. Once schroot accepts those union-types, it would be
> only a matter of passing proper configuration directives to have
> unionfs-fuse and/or other fuse implementations.

This would be a simple change to sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc:

diff --git a/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc b/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-un
index 8120024..a397f47 100644
--- a/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc
+++ b/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc
@@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ chroot_facet_union::set_union_type (std::string const& type)
 {
   if (type == "aufs" ||
       type == "unionfs" ||
+      type == "unionfs-fuse" ||
       type == "none")
     this->union_type = type;
   else

This simply permits "union-type=unionfs-fuse" in the configuration
file.  Would any other support be required in addition, e.g. in the
setup scripts?  You would definitely need to add support to
etc/setup.d/10mount, even if it's as simple as

diff --git a/etc/setup.d/10mount b/etc/setup.d/10mount
index 29636d1..78cdbad 100755
--- a/etc/setup.d/10mount
+++ b/etc/setup.d/10mount
@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ do_mount_fs_union()
     # Prepare mount options (branch config) for union type
     if [ -z "$CHROOT_UNION_MOUNT_OPTIONS" ]; then
        case $CHROOT_UNION_TYPE in
-           unionfs)
+           unionfs|unionfs-fuse)
                CHROOT_UNION_MOUNT_OPTIONS="dirs=${CHROOT_UNION_OVERLAY_DIRECTOR
                ;;
            aufs)

But if you needed any additional special mount options, you could add
them here.  If those options require additional keys in schroot.conf,
they would need adding to sbuild-chroot-facet-union.(cc|h).

I'm afraid I don't use the union functionality myself, which makes
validation and testing of this feature difficult.  I'll be happy to
review any changes, but you might also want to run them by Jan-Marek
Glogowski (CCd) who authored the unionfs support and should be a bit
more familiar with it than myself.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Message #30 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Shanto <shanto@hotmail.com>

To: Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net>

Cc: Shanto <shanto@hotmail.com>, 608121@bugs.debian.org, Jan-Marek Glogowski <glogow@fbihome.de>

Subject: Re: [buildd-tools-devel] Bug#608121: schroot: Add support for, unionfs-fuse

Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:58:06 +0600

Thanks Roger!

I will test this come back to you soon with complete patches (they would 
be simple or very similar to what you suggest) addressing this issue. In 
the meantime, I have also contacted[1] the developer of unionfs-fuse 
about this issue. I requested him to adjust his program/package to 
adhere to standard mount/fstab syntax. Once I get some response (or 
after it times out), I hope to get back to you with a complete set of 
changes for your review and inclusion.

[1] 
http://groups.google.com/group/unionfs-fuse/browse_thread/thread/8ccadc6679d19caf

Regards,
Shanto

On 10/31/2011 05:39 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 05:04:02AM +0600, Shanto wrote:
>> Has there been any progress on this? How could I help?
>>
>> mount -t fuse -o cow,suid,dev,allow_other "unionfs-fuse#d1=RW:d2=RO"
>>
>> While the above command should work in theory, schroot itself
>> doesn't allow any value for union-type other than aufs and unionfs:
>>
>> E: /etc/schroot/chroot.d/abf.conf: line 8 [abf32] union-type:
>> Unknown filesystem union type ‘fuse’
>> E: /etc/schroot/chroot.d/abf.conf: line 8 [abf32] union-type:
>> Unknown filesystem union type ‘unionfs-fuse’
>>
>> I think, we need schroot program to allow either of fuse or
>> unions-fuse. Once schroot accepts those union-types, it would be
>> only a matter of passing proper configuration directives to have
>> unionfs-fuse and/or other fuse implementations.
> This would be a simple change to sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc:
>
> diff --git a/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc b/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-un
> index 8120024..a397f47 100644
> --- a/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc
> +++ b/sbuild/sbuild-chroot-facet-union.cc
> @@ -151,6 +151,7 @@ chroot_facet_union::set_union_type (std::string const&  type)
>   {
>     if (type == "aufs" ||
>         type == "unionfs" ||
> +      type == "unionfs-fuse" ||
>         type == "none")
>       this->union_type = type;
>     else
>
> This simply permits "union-type=unionfs-fuse" in the configuration
> file.  Would any other support be required in addition, e.g. in the
> setup scripts?  You would definitely need to add support to
> etc/setup.d/10mount, even if it's as simple as
>
> diff --git a/etc/setup.d/10mount b/etc/setup.d/10mount
> index 29636d1..78cdbad 100755
> --- a/etc/setup.d/10mount
> +++ b/etc/setup.d/10mount
> @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ do_mount_fs_union()
>       # Prepare mount options (branch config) for union type
>       if [ -z "$CHROOT_UNION_MOUNT_OPTIONS" ]; then
>          case $CHROOT_UNION_TYPE in
> -           unionfs)
> +           unionfs|unionfs-fuse)
>                  CHROOT_UNION_MOUNT_OPTIONS="dirs=${CHROOT_UNION_OVERLAY_DIRECTOR
>                  ;;
>              aufs)
>
> But if you needed any additional special mount options, you could add
> them here.  If those options require additional keys in schroot.conf,
> they would need adding to sbuild-chroot-facet-union.(cc|h).
>
> I'm afraid I don't use the union functionality myself, which makes
> validation and testing of this feature difficult.  I'll be happy to
> review any changes, but you might also want to run them by Jan-Marek
> Glogowski (CCd) who authored the unionfs support and should be a bit
> more familiar with it than myself.
>
>
> Regards,
> Roger
>

Message #35 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Willmott Bell <willmottjzo780@yahoo.com>

To: 608121@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Sup! I'm sure being for boyfriend!

Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 08:22:07 -0700 (PDT)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

cqaslpl ambtdrlqwk nekcmdna
sanrkul rvisautvu ogoiqcilf
v K T V R J S N D T R I R W M
thnrvgnin O F E W V M S I
gdxasiaex sqksfpojg ifqjifdahmw
lpndwya ljofek pyggcjqhb
zbcpxirr U T Y B Y I F Y M G S H H P
fftzbjitsurlxlp L D V K U L H V H T T F

[qagmy.jpg (image/jpeg, attachment)]

Message #40 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Escuela 263, Min Adolfo Barbeito" <escuela263@sanluis.gov.ar>

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: FW: Grant

Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 18:54:46 -0300

-----Original Message-----
From: Escuela 263, Min Adolfo Barbeito
Sent: Fri 4/26/2019 6:31 PM
To: info@mail.com
Subject: Re: Grant
 

I, Mikhail Fridman picked you Reply To jb5406424@gmail.com for more details

Message #45 received at 608121@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: E E <elimondemehh1965@gmail.com>

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: Helo

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 06:06:40 -0700

Pershendetje

Ju lutemi kontrolloni mesazhin tim të hershëm dhe kthehuni tek unë, ju lutem.

Faleminderit.
të fala.
Elimond Emeh
****************************
Greeting

Kindly check my early message and get back to me please.

Thanks.
regards.
Elimond Eme

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.