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=-5.6 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 E2DE3C11D0C for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76FD206F4 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 20:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="KAtcqCNZ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728964AbgBTUAR (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:00:17 -0500 Received: from mail-il1-f193.google.com ([209.85.166.193]:36275 "EHLO mail-il1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728927AbgBTUAR (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Feb 2020 15:00:17 -0500 Received: by mail-il1-f193.google.com with SMTP id b15so24722515iln.3; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:00:16 -0800 (PST) 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=Hz+DKsj82X4tdj83FZa6Kg4xxF0FGCDR16OLCe3Lc5k=; b=KAtcqCNZ4K4H9jRXFSYY2AI5xegS847mVyu/+kOkKrZM/w/U935ZNLfsSbu0e9AKhC /T9DWXwyt9RvfoBkw2Oj+kHIEuxd/nryNGJeR6kDDYArgFAl4mFyp6JVmREm3LpaiqSR SMbUbWYUtTJ9w1MrVmaYWoKTDd9p4OKTAkwe0OxaeufxKW0Ed6P3vFzdoo5uTmJcPZWr 6GAgwXlP2mS+/iLtXIJxGr9Z1jNAejfyYwUyTA/o0uHI3ShEybWovcPphY66DZZAqhjl yWjWSp0tYciy9ehjqFP14vJ2DQH3NSwhR8htVH5WQ9s6mZY7Vo4FL90zi3NIkrGIrpxf qIjg== 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=Hz+DKsj82X4tdj83FZa6Kg4xxF0FGCDR16OLCe3Lc5k=; b=Sf86vikzVPbTLMltn1c/AAURZlJG8WMEFz/Q+wAre4Hbmddh4+LNEhLZMV3Cv9gCWW 7mN0ugSG9CJgQvEls67AAamwOQjQswW0yNCuF1AJJ/DLF5x2U45Stfs9nV8gzB49CwAa p1Wio/Vz+XSAU2z82sXPsuvK10sMFc9qElAE16Qoyb3c0o/KfQ7IrYoRazqOfYaVCaif VX7QwYotZb9i5qTGmjsealDp5r5seVeL9YCef3dHtiGTrMNXSXATHID3G6Z0berfzDqb oTE6eteVPcAdtpg4Fq9p94FIz3ix6whJXCnH5BWiGw2Jryg6f7sF8YXefKE5+HsEih12 vsgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWtvc8SIZ7m9LarHPwmDkwIPS959L+MogTrUNOC88YtRdwbvX/2 TWWe5WWhrm8b0/9BXXu3zPZi3+taaySYpX4Lb/Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwXs3IjemdzTD0tPMYGcRBe1+KGJFOflXyX/3N7UcQRkTWgVSGHNqCOaf0cK3nw/kLawCcKZoEUD4Xv4LR2MVY= X-Received: by 2002:a92:9c8c:: with SMTP id x12mr31320588ill.275.1582228816324; Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:00:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200131115004.17410-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200131115004.17410-5-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200204145951.GC11631@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Amir Goldstein Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 22:00:05 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ovl: alllow remote upper To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Vivek Goyal , 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 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 > > FWIW, overlayfs-next+ovl-strict-upper passes the quick xfstests, > except for overlay/031 - it fails because the RENAME_WHITEOUT check > leaves behind a whiteout in workdir. > I think it it is not worth to cleanup that whiteout leftover and > easier to fix the test. Nevermind. Fixed the whiteout cleanup and re-pushed. Thanks, Amir.