[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110322195331.GY22723@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:53:31 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: 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 08:43:17PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> In copy up it does:
>
> -> lock parent on upper
> -> lock child on upper
>
> So a setattr with copy up would go like this:
>
> -> lock child on overlayfs
> -> lock parent on upper
> ->lock child on upper
> -> lock child on upper
>
> > > 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?
>
> Not quite sure I understand.
>
> There are no assumptions about locks in overlayfs keeping anything
> relevant in upper/lower fs. Everything is re-checked and re-locked on
> the upper layer before proceeding with the rename.
Proceeding with rename is not interesting; proceeding with copyup is.
Who said that by the time we get to copy_up_locked you will still have
dentry (and upper) match lowerpath? Or that ->d_parent on overlay and
on upper will change in sync, for that matter - there are two d_move()
calls involved...
--
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