On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:39 PM Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Amir, > > Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:15 AM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 11:27 AM Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > >> > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > > >> > > Container folks are complaining that dnf/yum issues too many sync while > >> > > installing packages and this slows down the image build. Build > >> > > requirement is such that they don't care if a node goes down while > >> > > build was still going on. In that case, they will simply throw away > >> > > unfinished layer and start new build. So they don't care about syncing > >> > > intermediate state to the disk and hence don't want to pay the price > >> > > associated with sync. > >> > > > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> > Ping. > >> > > >> > Is there anything holding this patch? > >> > >> Not sure what happened with protection against mounting a volatile > >> overlay twice, I don't see that in the patch. > > > > Do you mean protection only for new kernels or old kernels as well? > > > > The latter can be achieved by using $workdir/volatile/ as upperdir > > instead of $upperdir. > > Or maybe even use $workdir/work/incompat/volatile/upper, so if older > > kernel tries to re-use that $workdir, it will fail to mount rw with error: > > > > overlayfs: cleanup of 'incompat/volatile' failed (-39) > > > > If we agree to that, then upperdir= should not be provided at all when > > specifying "volatile". > > in this case, what does a program need to do to remount the overlay more > than once? Is it enough to just delete a file? > Do you mean re-mount while forgetting all changes to previous "volatile" mount? The "workdir" should be re-created from scratch. IOW, rm -rf $workdir/volatile or rm -rf $workdir/incomapt depending on which one of my suggested alternatives is chosen. Thanks, Amir.
