On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:16:28PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > 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? Hi Amir, Right now it fails becuase virtiofs doesn't seem to support tmpfile yet. overlayfs: upper fs does not support tmpfile overlayfs: upper fs missing required features. Will have to check what's required to support it. I also wanted to run either overlay xfstests or unionmount-testsuite. But none of these seem to give me enough flexibility where I can specify that overlayfs needs to be mounted on top of virtiofs. I feel that atleast for unionmount-testsuite, there should be an option where we can simply give a target directory and tests run on that directory and user mounts that directory as needed. > 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. In general I agree that if we want to not support some configuration with remote upper, this is the time to introduce that restriction otherwise we will later run into backward compatibility issue. Having said that, tmpfile support for upper sounds like a nice to have feature. Not sure why to make it mandatory. Vivek
