Re: [PATCH 2/2] overlayfs.rst: fix ReST formatting

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.





[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux