Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 01:07:15AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
>
>> Umm... Cosmetical point is that this
>>
>> > +static bool ovl_remote(struct dentry *root)
>> > +{
>> > + const struct dentry_operations *dop = root->d_op;
>> > +
>> > + return dop && (dop->d_revalidate || dop->d_weak_revalidate);
>> > +}
>>
>> is better done as
>> root->d_flags & (DCACHE_OP_REVALIDATE | DCACHE_OP_WEAK_REVALIDATE)
>
> Okay.
>
>>
>> More interesting question is whether anything in the system relies on
>> existing behaviour that follows ->d_revalidate() returning 0.
>
> Hmm, d_invalidate() almost always follows ->d_revalidate(). Almost, becuase RCU
> lookup can get aborted at that point. We can easily stick d_invalidate() in
> there for the non-RCU case.
>
> Regular lookup also almost always follows ->d_revalidate(). Except if
> allocation of new dentry fails. So relying on this would be buggy (which is not
> to say nobody does it).
>
>> Have you tried to mount e.g. procfs as underlying layer and torture it for a
>> while?
>
> I did try now. Nothing bad happened during the test (parallel stat(1) of the
> whole overlayed proc tree).
>
> My laptop froze while trying to write this mail. But it's 8 years old and when
> the fan starts to make noises and the weather is hot, it does this sometimes. I
> don't think that has anything to do with overlayfs, but will do more
> testing...
A nasty corner case to be aware of (and I think this is part of what Al
was warning about). /proc/sys/net is different depending upon which
current->nsproxy->net_ns.
Eric
--
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
