Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] overlayfs constant inode numbers

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

 



On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 03:41:56PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:14:05PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> >> Miklos,
>> >>
>> >> Following your comments on the 'stable inodes' series from last week,
>> >> this series fixes constant inode numbers for stat(2) with any layer
>> >> configuration.
>> >>
>> >> For the case of all *lower* layers on same fs that supports NFS export,
>> >> redirect by file handle will be used to optimize the lookup of the copy
>> >> up origin of non-dir inode.
>> >
>> > I was trying to run unionmount-testsuite (original from dhowells) and I
>> > disabled layer check. Looks like empty directory rename test fails.
>> >
>> > ***
>> > *** ./run --ov --ts=0 rename-empty-dir
>> > ***
>> > TEST rename-empty-dir.py:10: Rename empty dir and rename back
>> >  ./run --rename /mnt/a/empty100 /mnt/a/no_dir100
>> >  /mnt/a/empty100: Unexpected error: Invalid cross-device link
>> >
>>
>> Strange... I can't find code in recent times when this used to work
>> It certainly doesn't look like it should work with kernel v4.10
>> and redirect_dir=off.
>> I couldn't the point of regression by looking at the change log.
>> You'd need to bisect to find the regression patch.
>>
>> Are you not compiling kernel with redirect_dir?
>> CONFIG_OVERLAY_FS_REDIRECT_DIR=y
>
> I noticed that I am running with REDIRECT_DIR=n.
>
> I also re-ran the tests without your patches and test is still broken. So
> it is not due to your current patch series.
>
> It has been long time since I ran these tests. I suspect that we might
> have changed this behavior during redirect directory patches.
>
> So question is, is this a regression or expected behavior. That is with
> REDIRECT_DIR=n, renames of empty directory will be denied too.
>

It must be a regression, although I can't think why anyone would care.
If one really cares about renaming lower empty directories, why not enable
REDIRECT_DIR?

>>
>> I guess not. If you do compile or mount with -o redirect_dir=on,
>> you will need some minimal patches to unionmount-testsuite
>> that set the expectations correctly for directory rename.
>>
>> The last stable branch I have from testing v4.10 is this:
>> https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/commits/ovl_rename_dir
>>
>> But you may as well take my most recent branch for testing const ino:
>> https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/commits/overlayfs-devel
>
> I guess I should start using your copy of unionmount-testsuite.
>
> Vivek



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux