On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:00 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:02 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:17 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:59 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:50:04PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > > No reason to prevent upper layer being a remote filesystem. Do the > > > > > > revalidation in that case, just as we already do for lower layers. > > > > > > > > > > > > This lets virtiofs be used as upper layer, which appears to be a real use > > > > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Miklos, > > > > > > > > > > I have couple of very basic questions. > > > > > > > > > > - So with this change, we will allow NFS to be upper layer also? > > > > > > > > I haven't tested, but I think it will fail on the d_type test. > > > > > > But we do not fail mount on no d_type support... > > > Besides, I though you were going to add the RENAME_WHITEOUT > > > test to avert untested network fs as upper. > > > > > > > Pushed strict remote upper check to: > > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/ovl-strict-upper > > Vivek, Could you please make sure that the code in ovl-strict-upper branch works as expected for virtio as upper fs? I have rebased it on latest overlayfs-next merge into current master. I would very much prefer that the code merged to v5.7-rc1 will be more restrictive than the current overlayfs-next. Thanks, Amir.
