On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:35 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > One thing that we will probably need to do is use the RENAME_WHITEOUT > interface as the explicit way to create the shared whiteout instead of using > vfs_whiteout() for filesystems that support RENAME_WHITEOUT > (we check for RENAME_WHITEOUT support anyway). > > The only thing that bothered me in moving from per-ovl-instance singleton > to per-ext4-singleton is what happens if someone tries to (say) chown -R > the upper layer or some other offline modification that was working up to > now and seemed to make sense. Eek. > > Surely, the ext4 singleton whiteout cannot allow modifications like that, > so what do we do about this? Let those scripts fail (if they exist) and > let their owners fix them to skip errors on whiteouts? Might try that. But the no-regressions rule means we'd have to change that in case it breaks something. Thanks, Miklos > Thanks, > Amir.
