On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> @@ -880,31 +913,34 @@ static int ovl_rename(struct inode *olddir, struct dentry *old,
>>> if (WARN_ON(olddentry->d_inode == newdentry->d_inode))
>>> goto out_dput;
>>>
>>> - if (is_dir && !old_opaque && ovl_lower_positive(new)) {
>>> - err = ovl_set_opaque(olddentry);
>>> - if (err)
>>> - goto out_dput;
>>> - ovl_dentry_set_opaque(old, true);
>>> + if (is_dir) {
>>> + if (ovl_type_merge_or_lower(old)) {
>>> + err = ovl_set_redirect(old);
>>
>> There is a fair chance of getting ENOSPC/EDQUOT here and confuse user space.
>> Would it be better to convert these non fatal errors with EXDEV, so
>> user space will
>> gracefully fallback to recursive rename/clone/copy?
>
> Recursive copy up will surely consume more space than an xattr?
>
>>> @@ -162,6 +223,23 @@ struct dentry *ovl_lookup(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry,
>>> stack[ctr].dentry = this;
>>> stack[ctr].mnt = lowerpath.mnt;
>>> ctr++;
>>> +
>>> + if (!stop && i != poe->numlower - 1 &&
>>> + d_is_dir(this) && ovl_redirect_dir(dentry->d_sb)) {
>>> + err = ovl_check_redirect(this, &redirect);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto out_put;
>>> +
>>> + if (redirect && poe != dentry->d_sb->s_root->d_fsdata) {
>>> + poe = dentry->d_sb->s_root->d_fsdata;
>>> +
>>
>> Now you are about to continue looping until new value of poe->numlower,
>> which is >= then olf value of poe->numlower, but 'stack' was allocated
>> according to old value of poe->numlower, so aren't you in danger of
>> overflowing it?
>>
>> Please add a comment to explain the purpose of this loop rewind.
>
> We are jumping to a stack possibly wider than the current one and need
> to find the layer where to continue the downward traversal. I'll add
> the comment.
>
OK. my point was that you need to allocate an sb max depth stack in advance,
in case you need to jump to a wider stack.
> BTW I don't remember having tested this, so it might possibly be
> buggy. Automatic multi-layer testing would really be good. What we
> basically need is:
>
> - create normal (two layer) overlay (with interesting constructs,
> whiteout, opaque dir, redirect)
> - umount
> - create three layer overlay where the two lower layers come from the
> previous upper/lower layers
> - do more interesting things
>
> There's one such test in xfstests but it would be good to have more.
>
I just sent 2 patches to fix 2 overlayfs xfstests failures.
With these 2 changes, the entire quick test group passes on my setup
(short of one test that also fails on ext4 and xfs).
Now I will start to think about instrumenting generic xfstests with lower/upper
files and then with rotating upper (i.e. layer stack).
Amir.
--
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
