From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758978AbcJZL0t (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:26:49 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f68.google.com ([209.85.218.68]:33702 "EHLO mail-oi0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756055AbcJZL0r (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:26:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [217.173.44.24] In-Reply-To: References: <1477380887-21333-1-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> <1477380887-21333-4-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> From: Miklos Szeredi Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:26:45 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: redirect on rename-dir To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Miklos Szeredi , "linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org" , Guillem Jover , Raphael Hertzog , linux-fsdevel , linux-kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> @@ -880,31 +913,34 @@ static int ovl_rename(struct inode *olddir, struct dentry *old, >> if (WARN_ON(olddentry->d_inode == newdentry->d_inode)) >> goto out_dput; >> >> - if (is_dir && !old_opaque && ovl_lower_positive(new)) { >> - err = ovl_set_opaque(olddentry); >> - if (err) >> - goto out_dput; >> - ovl_dentry_set_opaque(old, true); >> + if (is_dir) { >> + if (ovl_type_merge_or_lower(old)) { >> + err = ovl_set_redirect(old); > > There is a fair chance of getting ENOSPC/EDQUOT here and confuse user space. > Would it be better to convert these non fatal errors with EXDEV, so > user space will > gracefully fallback to recursive rename/clone/copy? Recursive copy up will surely consume more space than an xattr? >> @@ -162,6 +223,23 @@ struct dentry *ovl_lookup(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry, >> stack[ctr].dentry = this; >> stack[ctr].mnt = lowerpath.mnt; >> ctr++; >> + >> + if (!stop && i != poe->numlower - 1 && >> + d_is_dir(this) && ovl_redirect_dir(dentry->d_sb)) { >> + err = ovl_check_redirect(this, &redirect); >> + if (err) >> + goto out_put; >> + >> + if (redirect && poe != dentry->d_sb->s_root->d_fsdata) { >> + poe = dentry->d_sb->s_root->d_fsdata; >> + > > Now you are about to continue looping until new value of poe->numlower, > which is >= then olf value of poe->numlower, but 'stack' was allocated > according to old value of poe->numlower, so aren't you in danger of > overflowing it? > > Please add a comment to explain the purpose of this loop rewind. We are jumping to a stack possibly wider than the current one and need to find the layer where to continue the downward traversal. I'll add the comment. BTW I don't remember having tested this, so it might possibly be buggy. Automatic multi-layer testing would really be good. What we basically need is: - create normal (two layer) overlay (with interesting constructs, whiteout, opaque dir, redirect) - umount - create three layer overlay where the two lower layers come from the previous upper/lower layers - do more interesting things There's one such test in xfstests but it would be good to have more. Thanks, Miklos