Re: [PATCH 4/4] ovl: alllow remote upper

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

 



On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:15 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:16:28PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:00 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:02 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:17 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:59 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:50:04PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > > > > > No reason to prevent upper layer being a remote filesystem.  Do the
> > > > > > > > revalidation in that case, just as we already do for lower layers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This lets virtiofs be used as upper layer, which appears to be a real use
> > > > > > > > case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Miklos,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have couple of very basic questions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - So with this change, we will allow NFS to be upper layer also?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't tested, but I think it will fail on the d_type test.
> > > > >
> > > > > But we do not fail mount on no d_type support...
> > > > > Besides, I though you were going to add the RENAME_WHITEOUT
> > > > > test to avert untested network fs as upper.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pushed strict remote upper check to:
> > > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/ovl-strict-upper
> > > >
> >
> > Vivek,
> >
> > Could you please make sure that the code in ovl-strict-upper branch
> > works as expected for virtio as upper fs?
>
> Hi Amir,
>
> Right now it fails becuase virtiofs doesn't seem to support tmpfile yet.
>
> overlayfs: upper fs does not support tmpfile
> overlayfs: upper fs missing required features.
>
> Will have to check what's required to support it.
>
> I also wanted to run either overlay xfstests or unionmount-testsuite. But
> none of these seem to give me enough flexibility where I can specify
> that overlayfs needs to be mounted on top of virtiofs.
>
> I feel that atleast for unionmount-testsuite, there should be an
> option where we can simply give a target directory and tests run
> on that directory and user mounts that directory as needed.
>

Need to see how patches look.
Don't want too much configuration complexity, but I agree that some
flexibly is needed.
Maybe the provided target directory should be the upper/work basedir?

> > I have rebased it on latest overlayfs-next merge into current master.
> >
> > I would very much prefer that the code merged to v5.7-rc1 will be more
> > restrictive than the current overlayfs-next.
>
> In general I agree that if we want to not support some configuration
> with remote upper, this is the time to introduce that restriction
> otherwise we will later run into backward compatibility issue.
>
> Having said that, tmpfile support for upper sounds like a nice to
> have feature. Not sure why to make it mandatory.
>

Agreed, I just went automatic on all the warnings.
tmpfile should not be a requirement for upper.
Could you please verify that if dropping the tmpfile strict check,
virtio can be used as upper.

Thanks,
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