Re: [PATCH v5] ovl: Check link ability between upperdir and workdir

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:56 AM, cgxu519@xxxxxxx <cgxu519@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 在 2018年3月29日,下午8:54,Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> 写道:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:32 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 6:10 PM, Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Inspired by encountering unexpected write error with
>>>> error code -EXDEV when upperdir and workdir having
>>>> different project quotas. The reason of the error is
>>>> project quota asks files in it strictly inherit
>>>> project id of it’s own, so rename/link operations
>>>> between those directories will fail and it may cause
>>>> failure during copy-up/index-link operations in overlayfs.
>>>>
>>>> So if upper filesystem supports O_TMPFILE, try to check
>>>> link ability between upperdir and workdir and if check
>>>> fails, print a proper warning message to indicate potential
>>>> possibility of write failure.
>>>>
>>>> The failure of the check does not directly lead to
>>>> read-only mounting because in some use cases may only
>>>> write to upperdir and do not modify anything in lowerdirs.
>>
>> Thinking about a bit more: this assumes that mounter has create
>> permission under upper layer root.  That assumption would be true in
>> ordinary setups.  But if we break that assumption and deny create in
>> the root of the upper layer, we could still have a perfectly working
>> setup (as long as there's no need to copy-up anything in that
>> directory).
>
> Isn’t it similar to the check which upperdir and workdir must be in same filesystem?
> If we set project quota then the related directories will behave like sub-filesystem.


I agree with that.

What I'm saying is that your implementation may give a false positive
(i.e. warning on an otherwise perfectly working setup).

Worse yet, it may change the result of the tmpfile test in such a
case, which is a regression.

So I think the implementation needs to be rethought.

Thanks,
Miklos


>
>
> Thanks,
> Chengguang.
>
>
>>
>> So I'm not sure it's worth adding code for a check that is of dubious value.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Miklos
>> --
>> 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
>
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystems Devel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux