Re: linux-next: Tree for July 20 (overlayfs)

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

 



On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have here a problem with linux-next (next-20110720) and
> overlayfs-v10 (not the latest from GIT).
>
> ### OVERLAYFS
> # Patches from mszeredi/vfs.git#overlayfs.v10 (up to commit
> 00b27467b181a27c808cef0d66860eba5f450b24)
> # "overlay: overlay filesystem documentation"
> # See also <http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/6/1/456>
> # "[PATCH 0/7] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion"
> + overlayfs-v10/overlayfs-v10.patch
>
> Documentation/filesystems/porting says:
>
> [mandatory]
>        ->permission(), generic_permission() and ->check_acl() have lost flags
> argument; instead of passing IPERM_FLAG_RCU we add MAY_NOT_BLOCK into mask.
>        generic_permission() has also lost the check_acl argument; if you want
> non-NULL to be used for that inode, put it into ->i_op->check_acl.
>
> I checked with other files below fs/ and changed accordingly.
> So, I hope the attached patch is OK (untested, uncompiled)?
>
> What's the status of OverlayFS anyway, will it be merged into v3.1?
>
> Regards,
> - Sedat -
>

I checked again and adapted ovl_permission().

[ fs/namei.c ]
static int acl_permission_check(struct inode *inode, int mask)

Here is a v2, which compiles.

- Sedat -

Attachment: fs-overlayfs-inode.c-v2.diff
Description: plain/text


[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