On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 09:41:08PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:03 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 02:48:09AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > >>> > >>> case OPT_METACOPY_ON: > >>> config->metacopy = true; > >>> + config->strict = true; > >> > >> I think either ->strict should go in a separate patch or we should have > >> a good description in commit message, explaining why ->strict is there > >> and how it will impact behavior going forward. > > > > I'm redoing Amir's patches a bit, and at the moment I'm more inclined > > to leave this after the merge window, since there are so many subtle > > details to deal with. > > > > Back shortly with an updated set. > > ...this is more complicated than I thought. > > Anyway, pushed a metacopy fix to overlayfs-next, that I'm pretty happy with. > > I don't think erroring out on noxattr is important; falling back is > actually quite sane. And it isn't going to be an issue in real life, > since xattr is supported on lots of fs, and it's unlikely that lots of > people will want to use overlayfs with e.g. minix as the upper layer. Hi Miklos, This looks reasonable to me. I tried metacopy=on and it mounted. Only little issue seems to be that it enables redirect_dir but it does not show in /proc/mounts. #cat /proc/mounts | grep overlay none /root/overlayfs-testing/merged overlay rw,seclabel,relatime,lowerdir=lower:lower2,upperdir=upper,workdir=work,metacopy=on 0 0 Is this an issue or it is fine given on same kernel configuration all user has to pass is "metacopy=on" to get similar mount settings. Thought of pointing it out to make sure this is not an issue. Thanks Vivek
