[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1Q26mX-0001Tt-Jq@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:58:17 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, miklos@...redi.hu,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, apw@...onical.com, nbd@...nwrt.org,
neilb@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] overlay filesystem - request for inclusion
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Locking analysis would be really nice; AFAICS, it violates locking order
> > when called from e.g. ->setattr()
Locking order is always:
-> overlayfs locks
-> upper fs locks
-> lower fs locks
So it's really pretty simple and easy to validate.
> > and its protection against renames is
> > nowhere near enough. I might be missing something subtle, but...
Protection is exactly as for userspace callers. AFAICT.
> Miklos - have you tried using this with lockdep (together with the
> same filesystems mounted natively too)? I'd expect that that should
> show any bad lock usage..
Ah, lockdep. I have tried, but there seems to be always something
that triggers it at boot time on my laptop, which makes it useless. I
could find some other machine to test this on, though.
Thanks,
Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists