On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Tests that use _overlay_mount_dirs() should also use the > > default overlay mount options. > > Vivek, Eryu, > > I should make a disclaimer here: I did not test with SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS > because I have no SELinux in my test setup. > > Specifically, I am concerned that tests that compose "special" overlay mounts, > like tmpfs mounts and stacked overlay mounts (overlay/029) may not play well > with SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS applied to the special mounts. > I am less concerned about the tests that were converted to use > _overlay_scratch_mount_dirs() helper. > > Can either of you run a -g overlay/quick test with this series and valid > SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS? Sure, I'll do the testings anyway, and I have selinux enabled on my test vms. I noticed the overlay mount option mess too when I was reviewing MOUNT_OPTIONS fixes for btrfs from Gu Jinxiang last week. I was hoping to refactor the whole mount option handling through fstests. Perhaps this patchset is good start toward that direction. I'll test and review them. Thanks! Eryu -- 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
