Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hmm, that could result in a race where remount r/o of upper fs comes > >> in between copy-up and vfs_open() so copy-up succeeds but the actual > >> open fails. It's harmless, though, and not very likely. So I guess > >> your patch is OK. > > > > That race is there anyway if there's no copy up, right? > > No. The race I'm talking about is that with your patch it's possible > that the file will be copied up, but open will return -EROFS. Ah, I see what you're getting at. > Without your patch, that is not possible since holding write counter > for the mnt over both the copy-up and the open ensures that the > filesystem cannot become read-only in the middle. > > So your patch changes behavior, but the new behavior is acceptable, > because there's no major change in semantics (it should only be > detectable by the increased disk usage in the rare case of the failed > open). Okay. David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-unionfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
