Hi Amir,
Thanks again for the review and a heads-up about the tests. I was not aware they exist.
It took me some time to set them up due to really peculiar Makefile, but I now even have a yocto recipe to build them (will file it upstream later).
The latest master and my v3 both report the same results:
Failures: overlay/005 overlay/065 overlay/075
Failed 3 of 93 tests
(The full log is attached)
I assume the failures come due to my specific configuration, but since master and v3 issue the same results I should be fine here.
v2 indeed caused a few more failures on top of that:
Failures: overlay/005 overlay/065 overlay/070 overlay/071 overlay/075
Failed 5 of 93 tests
Could you please tell me just for my information what's the usual time frame to have my v3 mainlined?
Thanks,
Vyacheslav
- confidential -
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 13:39
> To: Vyacheslav Yurkov <uvv.mail@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>; overlayfs <linux-
> unionfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Yurkov, Vyacheslav
> <Vyacheslav.Yurkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] ovl: do not set overlay.opaque for new
> directories
>
> **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:46 PM Vyacheslav Yurkov <uvv.mail@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Vyacheslav Yurkov <Vyacheslav.Yurkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Enable optimizations only if user opted-in for any of extended features.
> > If optimization is enabled, it breaks existing use case when a lower layer
> > directory appears after directory was created on a merged layer. If
> > overlay.opaque is applied, new files on lower layer are not visible.
> >
> > Consider the following scenario:
> > - /lower and /upper are mounted to /merged
> > - directory /merged/new-dir is created with a file test1
> > - overlay is unmounted
> > - directory /lower/new-dir is created with a file test2
> > - overlay is mounted again
> >
> > If opaque is applied by default, file test2 is not going to be visible
> > without explicitly clearing the overlay.opaque attribute
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vyacheslav Yurkov <Vyacheslav.Yurkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Vyacheslav,
>
> The series looks good.
> In case you post another version please add:
> Reviewed-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> No need to repost just for that.
>
> Did you happen to run xfstests on these patches?
>
> If I am not mistaken, tests overlay/068 and overlay/069 provide
> test coverage to the check in ovl_lower_uuid_ok() for the case
> of lower null uuid (lower overlayfs) and user opt-in to new features
> (nfs_export), so tests would have caught the bug you had in v2.
>
> Please verify that I am not wrong (about test catching v2 bug) and
> that v3 passes at least:
> ./check -overlay -g overlay/quick -g overlay/union
>
> Please see README.overlay in xfstests for setting up to run
> ./check -overlay and the unionmount tests.
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
>
>
> > fs/overlayfs/dir.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/dir.c b/fs/overlayfs/dir.c
> > index 93efe7048a77..03a22954fe61 100644
> > --- a/fs/overlayfs/dir.c
> > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/dir.c
> > @@ -320,6 +320,7 @@ static bool ovl_type_origin(struct dentry *dentry)
> > static int ovl_create_upper(struct dentry *dentry, struct inode *inode,
> > struct ovl_cattr *attr)
> > {
> > + struct ovl_fs *ofs = OVL_FS(dentry->d_sb);
> > struct dentry *upperdir = ovl_dentry_upper(dentry->d_parent);
> > struct inode *udir = upperdir->d_inode;
> > struct dentry *newdentry;
> > @@ -338,7 +339,8 @@ static int ovl_create_upper(struct dentry *dentry,
> struct inode *inode,
> > if (IS_ERR(newdentry))
> > goto out_unlock;
> >
> > - if (ovl_type_merge(dentry->d_parent) && d_is_dir(newdentry)) {
> > + if (ovl_type_merge(dentry->d_parent) && d_is_dir(newdentry) &&
> > + !ovl_allow_offline_changes(ofs)) {
> > /* Setting opaque here is just an optimization, allow to fail */
> > ovl_set_opaque(dentry, newdentry);
> > }
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
Attachment:
check-patched.log
Description: check-patched.log
