feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54

Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open

feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot

Conversation

@hallyn

@hallynhallyn commented Mar 29, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.

@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper

raharper commented Mar 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.

Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.

@hallyn

hallyn commented Mar 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.

Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.

Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.

I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.

case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper

raharper commented Mar 31, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.

Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.

Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.

I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.

While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?

Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).

WDTY?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { injectUserscript("// Add copy buttons to all 
 blocks\n(function() {\n function addCopyButtons() {\n document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {\n if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;\n codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');\n \n var btn = document.createElement('button');\n btn.textContent = 'Copy';\n btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';\n btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };\n btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };\n btn.onclick = function() {\n navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {\n btn.textContent = 'Copied!';\n setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);\n });\n };\n codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';\n codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);\n });\n }\n \n addCopyButtons();\n \n // Re-run on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '

Skip to content
feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54
Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open
feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Conversation
@hallyn
@hallynhallyn
commented
Mar 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
@hallyn
hallyn
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?
Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).
WDTY?
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode\n(function() {\n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '\n .markdown-body {\n color-scheme: dark light;\n }\n .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }\n .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }\n .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }\n .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }\n .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }\n .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }\n ';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n})();", "GitHub Dark Mode README Fix");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54
Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open
feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Conversation
@hallyn
@hallynhallyn
commented
Mar 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
@hallyn
hallyn
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?
Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).
WDTY?
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer\n(function() {\n var ref = document.referrer;\n var terms = [];\n \n if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {\n var url = new URL(ref);\n var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');\n if (q) {\n terms = q.split(/\\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });\n }\n }\n \n if (terms.length === 0) return;\n \n var style = document.createElement('style');\n style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n \n function highlight(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node\n var text = node.textContent;\n var found = false;\n terms.forEach(function(term) {\n var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\\]\\\\]/g, '\\\\') + ')', 'gi');\n if (regex.test(text)) {\n found = true;\n var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();\n var parts = text.split(regex);\n parts.forEach(function(part, i) {\n if (i % 2 === 0) {\n frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));\n } else {\n var span = document.createElement('span');\n span.className = 'userscript-highlight';\n span.textContent = part;\n frag.appendChild(span);\n }\n });\n node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);\n }\n });\n } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element\n var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];\n if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {\n Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);\n }\n }\n }\n \n highlight(document.body);\n \n // Re-highlight on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Highlight Search Terms");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54
Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open
feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Conversation
@hallyn
@hallynhallyn
commented
Mar 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
@hallyn
hallyn
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?
Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).
WDTY?
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page\n(function() {\n var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',\n 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',\n 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];\n \n function cleanUrl(url) {\n try {\n var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);\n var changed = false;\n trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {\n if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {\n u.searchParams.delete(p);\n changed = true;\n }\n });\n return changed ? u.toString() : url;\n } catch (e) {\n return url;\n }\n }\n \n function cleanLinks() {\n document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n \n cleanLinks();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n mutations.forEach(function(m) {\n m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {\n if (node.nodeType === 1) {\n if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();\n node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {\n var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);\n if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;\n });\n }\n });\n });\n });\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "Remove Tracking Parameters from Links");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '

Skip to content
feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54
Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open
feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Conversation
@hallyn
@hallynhallyn
commented
Mar 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
@hallyn
hallyn
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?
Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).
WDTY?
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube\n(function() {\n function tryTheater() {\n var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label=\"Theater mode\"], ytd-player #player button[title=\"Theater mode\"]');\n if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {\n btn.click();\n }\n }\n \n // Try immediately\n tryTheater();\n \n // Try after navigation (SPA)\n var lastUrl = location.href;\n setInterval(function() {\n if (location.href !== lastUrl) {\n lastUrl = location.href;\n setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);\n }\n }, 1000);\n \n // Also try on player load\n var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });\n})();", "YouTube Theater Mode Default");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54
Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open
feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Conversation
@hallyn
@hallynhallyn
commented
Mar 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
@hallyn
hallyn
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?
Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).
WDTY?
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content\n(function() {\n function unstick() {\n document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role=\"banner\"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*=\"position: fixed\"], [style*=\"position:sticky\"]').forEach(function(el) {\n if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || \n getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {\n el.style.position = 'static';\n el.style.top = 'auto';\n el.style.zIndex = 'auto';\n }\n });\n }\n \n unstick();\n \n var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);\n observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });\n})();", "Kill Sticky Headers");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '

Skip to content
feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54
Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open
feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Conversation
@hallyn
@hallynhallyn
commented
Mar 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
@hallyn
hallyn
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?
Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).
WDTY?
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper

, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
injectUserscript("// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site\n(function() {\n var enabled = true;\n \n function applyDarkMode() {\n if (!enabled) return;\n \n // Create style element if it doesn't exist\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (!style) {\n style = document.createElement('style');\n style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';\n document.head.appendChild(style);\n }\n \n // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video\n style.textContent = '\n /* Invert everything except media */\n html {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #1a1a2e !important;\n }\n \n /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */\n img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*=\"background-image\"] {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n }\n \n /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */\n .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,\n [data-theme=\"light\"], [data-theme=\"light\"],\n .ace_editor, .ace_editor *,\n .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,\n .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,\n .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,\n .highlight, .highlight *,\n pre code, pre code * {\n filter: none !important;\n }\n \n /* Fix common UI elements */\n .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {\n filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;\n background: #2d2d44 !important;\n border-color: #444 !important;\n }\n \n /* Scrollbars */\n ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }\n ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }\n \n /* Selection */\n ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }\n ';\n }\n \n function removeDarkMode() {\n var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');\n if (style) style.remove();\n }\n \n // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D\n document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {\n if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {\n e.preventDefault();\n enabled = !enabled;\n if (enabled) {\n applyDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');\n } else {\n removeDarkMode();\n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');\n }\n }\n });\n \n // Apply on load\n applyDarkMode();\n \n // Re-apply on dynamic content\n var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {\n if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {\n applyDarkMode();\n }\n });\n observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });\n \n console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');\n})();", "Universal Dark Mode");
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();

Skip to content
feat: simplify mounting as non-root - #54
Open
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Open
feat: simplify mounting as non-root#54
hallyn wants to merge 1 commit into
project-machine:mainfrom 
hallyn:serge/2026-03-28/nonroot
Conversation
@hallyn
@hallynhallyn
commented
Mar 29, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
@hallyn
feat: simplify mounting as non-root
c591e8f
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity.
Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to
mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always
specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in
unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are
not host root.
@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.
Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
@hallyn
hallyn
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

ContributorAuthor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
case "$mediatype" in
application/vnd.*.image.layer.squashfs*)
MOUNT_HELPER="atomfs"
;;
application/vnd.puzzlefs.image.rootfs.*)
MOUNT_HELPER="puzzlefs"
;;
esac
...
"$MOUNT_HELPER" mount --persist "${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" "${OCI_DIR}:${OCI_NAME}" "$LXC_ROOTFS"
...
echo "lxc.hook.pre-mount = $MOUNT_HELPER mount --persist ${MOUNT_HELPER_UPPERDIR}" \
'${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}/../oci:${LXC_NAME} ${LXC_ROOTFS_PATH}' \
>> "${LXC_CONF_FILE}";;

@raharper
raharper
commented
Mar 31, 2026

Copy link


Copy Markdown

Contributor
If you are not root on the host, you can't mount with fs-verity. Atomfs currently makes you add the --allow-missing-verity flag to mount without verify. This means that non-host-root has to always specify that flag. That's silly, not helpful, and makes use in unprivileged lxc more painful.

Still spit out a warning, but don't refuse to mount if you are not host root.
Do we want a cli flag? Warnings aren't seen when used in scripts; but refusing without a flag would at least make script/caller look and update call sites.
Well, we already have that, in the --allow-missing-verity option.
I was specifically looking to do lxc-create -t oci -n d1 -- --url oci:dir:squashfs-image. The lxc-oci template supports both atomfs and puzzlefs. But doesn't pass that argument. So to use this unprivileged, we have to update the template and the created container config (created by the template) to pass that argument - but only when using atomfs, and not when using puzzlefs, which so far are pleasantly common paths.
While the path is clean, the behavior difference is stark, IIUC. Using a puzzlefs image will still verify the image, but an atomfs image won't get verified?
Given the goals of atomfs and puzzlefs providing image-integrity-at-runtime I do think diverging the codepath to raise error and allow user to override seems like the Right Thing (tm).
WDTY?
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment

Reviewers


No reviews


Assignees


No one assigned


Labels


None yet


Projects


None yet


Milestone


No milestone


Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@hallyn@raharper