On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 7:16 AM Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 09:33:24AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Fix some indentation issues and missing newlines in quoted text. > > > > Unindent a) b) enumerated list to workaround github displaying it > > as numbered list. > > > > Reported-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.rst | 69 +++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.rst b/Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.rst > > index 926396fdc5eb..37467ad5cff4 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.rst > > @@ -174,10 +174,10 @@ programs. > > seek offsets are assigned sequentially when the directories are read. > > Thus if > > > > - - read part of a directory > > - - remember an offset, and close the directory > > - - re-open the directory some time later > > - - seek to the remembered offset > > +- read part of a directory > > +- remember an offset, and close the directory > > +- re-open the directory some time later > > +- seek to the remembered offset > > Looks OK. > > > > > there may be little correlation between the old and new locations in > > the list of filenames, particularly if anything has changed in the > > @@ -285,21 +285,21 @@ Permission model > > > > Permission checking in the overlay filesystem follows these principles: > > > > - 1) permission check SHOULD return the same result before and after copy up > > +1) permission check SHOULD return the same result before and after copy up > > > > - 2) task creating the overlay mount MUST NOT gain additional privileges > > +2) task creating the overlay mount MUST NOT gain additional privileges > > > > - 3) non-mounting task MAY gain additional privileges through the overlay, > > - compared to direct access on underlying lower or upper filesystems > > +3) non-mounting task MAY gain additional privileges through the overlay, > > + compared to direct access on underlying lower or upper filesystems > > > > -This is achieved by performing two permission checks on each access > > +This is achieved by performing two permission checks on each access: > > > > - a) check if current task is allowed access based on local DAC (owner, > > - group, mode and posix acl), as well as MAC checks > > +a) check if current task is allowed access based on local DAC (owner, > > +group, mode and posix acl), as well as MAC checks > > > > - b) check if mounting task would be allowed real operation on lower or > > - upper layer based on underlying filesystem permissions, again including > > - MAC checks > > +b) check if mounting task would be allowed real operation on lower or > > +upper layer based on underlying filesystem permissions, again including > > +MAC checks > > Shouldn't the numbered list be `1.` and `a.`? > As I wrote in the commit message: "Unindent a) b) enumerated list to workaround github displaying it as numbered list." For some reason github displays a. as 1.: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/filesystems/overlayfs.rst#permission-model > > @@ -421,15 +421,15 @@ Since kernel version v6.8, "data-only" lower layers can also be added using > > the "datadir+" mount options and the fsconfig syscall from new mount api. > > For example: > > > > - fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "lowerdir+", "/l1", 0); > > - fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "lowerdir+", "/l2", 0); > > - fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "lowerdir+", "/l3", 0); > > - fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "datadir+", "/do1", 0); > > - fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "datadir+", "/do2", 0); > > + | fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "lowerdir+", "/l1", 0); > > + | fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "lowerdir+", "/l2", 0); > > + | fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "lowerdir+", "/l3", 0); > > + | fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "datadir+", "/do1", 0); > > + | fsconfig(fs_fd, FSCONFIG_SET_STRING, "datadir+", "/do2", 0); > > What about using code block syntax (e.g. `For example::`)? > Nice! I will convert all code blocks to use this format. Thanks, Amir.
