On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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. > > Thanks, the patch looks good. > > And ->fsync is another one that will have an updated API. > > Miklos > > --- > fs/overlayfs/readdir.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c 2011-07-21 17:07:52.000000000 +0200 > +++ linux-2.6/fs/overlayfs/readdir.c 2011-07-21 17:10:20.000000000 +0200 > @@ -386,7 +386,8 @@ static loff_t ovl_dir_llseek(struct file > return res; > } > > -static int ovl_dir_fsync(struct file *file, int datasync) > +static int ovl_dir_fsync(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, > + int datasync) > { > struct ovl_dir_file *od = file->private_data; > > @@ -400,7 +401,7 @@ static int ovl_dir_fsync(struct file *fi > return PTR_ERR(od->realfile); > } > > - return vfs_fsync(od->realfile, datasync); > + return vfs_fsync_range(od->realfile, start, end, datasync); > } > > static int ovl_dir_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file) > Hi Miklos, cool, thanks. I have renamed my patch in the meanwhile to "ovl-Fix-ovl_permission-by-adding-MAY_NOT_BLOCK-into-mask.patch". The change was due to... commit d749519b444db985e40b897f73ce1898b11f997e "->permission() sanitizing: don't pass flags to generic_permission()" [1]. You want me to do a clean patch or by yourself? Can you please, do a overlayfs-v11 on top of Linux-3.0? I hope your work will be accepted into v3.1. Regards, - Sedat - [1] http://git.us.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=d749519b444db985e40b897f73ce1898b11f997e -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
