Hi, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 8:35 PM Vinicius Costa Gomes > <vinicius.gomes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> This series is rebased on top of Amir's overlayfs-next branch. >> >> Changes from v2: >> - Removed the "convert to guard()/scoped_guard()" patches (Miklos Szeredi); >> - In the overlayfs code, convert all users of override_creds()/revert_creds() to the _light() versions by: >> 1. making ovl_override_creds() use override_creds_light(); >> 2. introduce ovl_revert_creds() which calls revert_creds_light(); >> 3. convert revert_creds() to ovl_revert_creds() >> (Amir Goldstein); >> - Fix an potential reference counting issue, as the lifetime >> expectations of the mounter credentials are different (Christian >> Brauner); >> > > Hi Vicius, > > The end result looks good to me, but we still need to do the series a > bit differently. > >> The series is now much simpler: >> >> Patch 1: Introduce the _light() version of the override/revert cred operations; >> Patch 2: Convert backing-file.c to use those; >> Patch 3: Do the conversion to use the _light() version internally; > > This patch mixes a small logic change and a large mechanical change > that is not a good mix. > > I took the liberty to split out the large mechanical change to > ovl: use wrapper ovl_revert_creds() > and pushed it to branch > https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/ovl_creds > > I then rebased overlayfs-next over this commit and resolved the > conflicts with the pure mechanical change. > > Now you can rebase your patches over ovl_creds and they should > not be conflicting with overlayfs-next changes. > > The reason I wanted to do this is that Christian could take your changes > as well as my ovl_creds branch through the vfs tree if he chooses to do so. > Makes sense. >> Patch 4: Fix a potential refcounting issue > > This patch cannot be separated from patch #3 because it would introduce the > refcount leak mid series. > > But after I took out all the mechanical changes out of patch #3, > there should be no problem for you to squash patches #3 and #4 together. > Done. > One more nit: please use "ovl: ..." for commit titles instead of > "fs/overlayfs: ...". > Also done. Will give the series a round of testing, just to be sure, and will send the next version tomorrow. > Thanks, > Amir. Cheers, -- Vinicius
