[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110322190002.GW22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:00:02 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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, Mar 22, 2011 at 07:58:17PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 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.
In which *order* on the upper fs?
> Protection is exactly as for userspace callers. AFAICT.
Pardon? You traverse the chain of ancestors; fine, but who says it stays
anywhere near being relevant as you go?
--
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