On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> With overlayfs, it is wrong to compare file_inode(inode)->i_sb >>>> of regular files with those of non-regular files, because the >>>> former reference the real (upper/lower) sb and the latter reference >>>> the overlayfs sb. >>>> >>>> Move the test for same super block after the sanity tests for >>>> clone range of directory and non-regular file. >>> >>> Better: compare ->f_path.dentry->d_sb instead of file_inode()->i_sb. >>> We don't want to be mixing files that come from overlayfs and ones >>> that come from the underlying layers. >> >> That's not a good option. >> When source file is in lower and dest file is in upper, then clone range >> should go forward iff both lower and upper inodes are on the same sb. >> The test as it is checks for this properly. >> > > Ping. > > Do you have any more question about this change? > Do you mind queuing this up for next along with the rest of the > clone_file_range() changes? Applied and pushed to #overlayfs-next. Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
