On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:28 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> It certainly is. It doesn't mean that fixing incorrect behavior won't >> lead to unacceptable regressions, which may require explicit >> d_real() call from filesystem to be fixed. > > I don't get it. The only possible regression is denying modification > on lower layer where previously was allowed. But anybody relying on > that would be pretty crazy. > Agreed that is pretty crazy, but consider: _strong_open_rdwr: - remove immutable flag - open file RDWR That would work on current kernels in spite of possibly changing lower immutable flag, but may break with this patch. If this is done by a sufficiently common app, fixing the breakage may require some explicit copy up somewhere... Note that the app is not crazy to require changing lower, the app is perfectly sane to require being able to remove the immutable flag before trying to open rdrw. But I guess the only way to know is make the change and wait for the reports. 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
