From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752661AbcKGJ62 (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2016 04:58:28 -0500 Received: from mail-lf0-f66.google.com ([209.85.215.66]:33565 "EHLO mail-lf0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751432AbcKGJ6M (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Nov 2016 04:58:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1477380887-21333-1-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> <1477380887-21333-4-git-send-email-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20161025115748.ydhkkp5cfcdnjzwn@home.ouaza.com> From: Konstantin Khlebnikov Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:58:08 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ovl: redirect on rename-dir To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: Raphael Hertzog , Miklos Szeredi , "linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org" , Guillem Jover , linux-fsdevel , Linux Kernel Mailing List 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 Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: >>> >>>> Do you plan to make it the default in the future when it has been >>>> available for a while? >>>> >>>> Barring any regression introduced by your patch, it seems that the feature >>>> is best available by default since it allows legitimate operations to >>>> succeed that are otherwise refused. I understand that it makes it >>>> impossible to mount the overlay filesystem with an older kernel but is >>>> that problem more widespread than the one we're fixing here? On my side, >>>> overlayfs is only used in scenarios where the kernel is always the same >>>> (or newer compared to what created the initial filesystem). >>> >>> I think it would be safe to make it the default if upperdir is empty. >>> Nonempty implies that it was created with old kernel (or it was >>> crafted by hand). But there should be a way to explicitly turn it >>> off; either because of the need for backward compatibility or because >>> the old format is simply easier to work with for humans. >>> >>> How about: >>> >>> - If upper is nonempty, then leave redirect feature alone except when >>> mount option "-oredirect=on" is used to force enabling it. >>> - If upper is empty, then enable redirect feature except when mount >>> option "-oredirect=off" is used to force disabling it. >> >> I don't like this empty-nonempty upper logic. >> >> I think this feature should be off by default and be enabled >> explicitly in mount option. >> Available features could be listed in sysfs /sys/fs/overlay/..., like ext4 does. >> >> Overlayfs mounting anyway is complicated operation. >> User must know a lot about it and provide persistent state for each mount: >> list layers in correct order, work and uppder directory on the same disk, etc. >> Enabled features is a part of this state. >> >> Probably this could be solved in userspace tool "mount.overlay" - it could load >> features and layers from config file or xattr and set required mount >> options automatically. > > It seems there are some conflicting opinions here. I have mine too, > but I'll let this simmer and concentrate on actual features for now. Ok =) let's try keep as simple as possible. I've stumbled on somehow related problem - concurrent copy-ups are strictly serialized by rename locks. Obviously, file copying could be done in parallel: locks are required only for final rename. Because of that overlay slower that aufs for some workloads.