On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 06:32:52PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 6:18 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 01:23:58PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >> > @@ -1164,6 +1187,7 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> >> >
> >> > ofs->config.redirect_dir = ovl_redirect_dir_def;
> >> > ofs->config.index = ovl_index_def;
> >> > + ofs->config.metacopy = ovl_metacopy_def;
> >> > err = ovl_parse_opt((char *) data, &ofs->config);
> >> > if (err)
> >> > goto out_err;
> >> > @@ -1209,6 +1233,16 @@ static int ovl_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> >> > else if (ofs->upper_mnt->mnt_sb != ofs->same_sb)
> >> > ofs->same_sb = NULL;
> >> >
> >> > + if (!(ovl_force_readonly(ofs)) && ofs->config.metacopy) {
> >> > + /* Verify lower root is upper root origin */
> >> > + err = ovl_verify_origin(upperpath.dentry,
> >> > + oe->lowerstack[0].dentry, false, true);
> >> > + if (err) {
> >> > + pr_err("overlayfs: failed to verify upper root origin\n");
> >> > + goto out_free_oe;
> >> > + }
> >> > + }
> >> > +
> >> >
> >>
> >> Fs can have upper but no workdir and you still need to verify lower
> >> If metacopy is enabled
> >
> > Hmm..., trying to understand this. This probably is more involved.
> >
> > So first use case is that if metacopy is being enabled, verify lower
> > root is upper root origin. (Even if it is read-only fs).
> >
> > if (ofs->upper_mnt && ofs->config.metacopy)
> > ovl_verify_origin().
>
> Yes, this is needed in case workdir/work dir creation fails and fs is mounted
> read-only. You should not allow it with metacopy on unverified lower.
>
> >
> > But this does not cover the case of same fs being remounted with
> > metacopy=off. In that case we will not do metacopy only copy ups but
> > existing metacopy inodes will still require that lower does not change.
> >
> > Will it make sense to set OVL_METACOPY xattr on upper when metacopy=on
> > is done first time on mount. And later in subsequent mounts, if METACOPY
> > is set on upper, make sure to verify origin and make sure lower supports
> > file handles etc.
> >
>
> This is an related to what we discussed at length on the ovl-features
> patches.
>
> Yes, we SHOULD mark that the metacopy feature was enabled, at least
> on first meta_copy_up().
>
> No, we should not do that by marking root upper with metacopy xattr.
> this would be very confusing and inconsistent.
> We can either set trusted.overlay.features on upper root as Miklos suggested
> or incompat_feature/ directory as I suggested, but we need to decide on
> a consistent scheme we can use for other features as well.
Agreed. We need a generic sheme to mark what features have been enabled
and what are incomapt features and which ones are rocompat etc and then
all current and future overlayfs features can make use of that generic
infrastructure.
>
> I guess metacopy must have this infrastructure in place, because as you
> correctly noted, we should not mount an overlay with metacopied inodes
> without verifying lower and file handle support.
Ok, so for now, I will just verify lower when metacopy is enabled. For
other case, will wait for something generic to be merged upstream.
Vivek
--
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
