From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E624FC0044D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF89D20663 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="nn4T3ea3" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732375AbgCPTCp (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:02:45 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-f193.google.com ([209.85.166.193]:43793 "EHLO mail-il1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732298AbgCPTCp (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:02:45 -0400 Received: by mail-il1-f193.google.com with SMTP id d14so17101418ilq.10; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:02:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=chjWHVuom4ZfeP5zCTPxwSF15SF5FqtFAtdtkGRn8D8=; b=nn4T3ea3linZW9wUG7rC2nqWYqOr3ruRP3iMZFzV1ftD/G9PDhetOlyJqOrUkvxlJm W6O6VufBNPjBKSZh9J3+xBzasV8F8ls7j1sg88NO+cmQqC21sdFVxoU8n2gatqo9IebD LOBW/skpTdsmVkDOUC1KRJgw7/X4pfY570haflK5aBv98cyFRuEbZjdCytlOFZ5ePTGx l7/sS+xhZ3b1aCJCnzkz7Qa77wn6i6RF+gIOxkHG9rP9NTcsSQFZVEiR5kiYSK2KF4+q dXMs7Cwscc+56r5GrunH73KoDMcjPWDhGeirt5RfcguQ4Cz0YCefbx1CTab/PapB72PE oZnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=chjWHVuom4ZfeP5zCTPxwSF15SF5FqtFAtdtkGRn8D8=; b=l9rEULtTN9PbYO7CESWm/jW/UOI6wP4xhEK1USpwLeqF9yYtaAurxu+M+Qy7AtDWtB heQJuigiZgG0jdnf8IZIhnU5+7bEUh+5jSixfOmy+cuUlz3iNoHC/W1IrBHlRCrimgJX lZrk0mPOQtSeRvGx7ua5sx5ttP5qzepdS+oLXlNQGhxnqINfNtB3uow9VBj4zfbBs4lt U/FvhEbM4MDhg3uxqxqFDJ5w8sWS3pdOo6+0vwKAPwGymf7MT79phmgrMXOAXEWp8u/Z DVjzYX2R4TSwEULn9vIQyyhdWRqKINbiyGUZ6gKC7s2zDIXzP4BuyJK8soHE49l+ZlCl MdNQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ27AIWdstQs0rD2vDY0NvuaRoNwN573JHQ2Vfq/uFwVORB53VOv 3BsP5l1HYWFVFIRgHg3tyoZ8m9+4sDO3RftSn2Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtUp4WdUsZQRLt/aDw26p7dzvd5I6iOAp0ayf/PIBmWCrLq08zv4bC5vNdDOrreOfI6kF3qk4+ODpuDzFmQh58= X-Received: by 2002:a92:9f1a:: with SMTP id u26mr1306872ili.72.1584385364022; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:02:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200131115004.17410-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200131115004.17410-5-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200204145951.GC11631@redhat.com> <20200316175453.GB4013@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20200316175453.GB4013@redhat.com> From: Amir Goldstein Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 21:02:32 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ovl: alllow remote upper To: Vivek Goyal Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Miklos Szeredi , overlayfs , linux-fsdevel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-unionfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:15 PM Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2020 at 03:16:28PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:00 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:52 AM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:02 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 6:17 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:59 PM Vivek Goyal 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. > Need to see how patches look. Don't want too much configuration complexity, but I agree that some flexibly is needed. Maybe the provided target directory should be the upper/work basedir? > > 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. > Agreed, I just went automatic on all the warnings. tmpfile should not be a requirement for upper. Could you please verify that if dropping the tmpfile strict check, virtio can be used as upper. Thanks, Amir.