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 4:53 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:49:00PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:23:28PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> >> 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 will enable it now. I just had an old config and ran into this.
>> >
>> > But this does raise the question unionmount-testsuite need to be
>> > maintained somewhere so that it acts as a baseline to figure out if
>> > new patches broke some existing tests.
>> >
>> > I can go by the tree you are maintaining but currently that's broken too
>> > with REDIRECT_DIR=n.
>> >
>>
>> Right.
>> I have given some though about what's the best way to handle this.
>> Probably need a test flag --noredirect. I'll add this to my TODO...
>>
>> BTW, I try to keep the branch overlayfs-devel uptodate for testing
>> latest features. It could be rebased, but I'll make an effort not to.
>> If there is a need for a more stable non-rewindable branch, let me know.
>
> I think would be good if you maintain "master" branch of your tree up
> to date and hopefully that's stable so that later git pull does not talk
> about conflicts. We can then use your tree for setting a baseline and
> detecting regressions.
>
> CCing Dave Howells, in case he is interested in continuing to update his
> tree as overlayfs kernel development takes place.
>

OK. declaring branch master on my tree 'ff-only':
https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/tree/master

Last commit is set to:
060af33 run --ov --samefs uses lower/upper on same fs

This commit contains instructions also how to setup unionmount-testsuite
on non tmpfs, which is very useful for being in touch with reality.

It is recommended to test at least with the following flag combinations:
./run --ov # tmpfs not same for lower/upper
./run --ov=0 # same as above with cycle mount after mkdir/rename
./run --ov --samefs # tmpfs or configured base fs, same for lower and upper
./run --ov=0 --samefs # same as above with cycle mount after mkdir/rename

Mind you that testing constant inode work still requires branch overlayfs-devel
with the fix to check_layers() and more goodies.

Amir.



[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