linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v16)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130312222350.GK21522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 12 Mar 2013 22:23:50 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Robo Bot <apw@...onical.com>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@...nwrt.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>,
	Jordi Pujol <jordipujolp@...il.com>, ezk@....cs.sunysb.edu,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...glemail.com>,
	"J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05@...oo.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] overlay filesystem: request for inclusion (v16)

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:50:02PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> wrote:
> > Al and Linus,
> >
> > Please consider overlayfs for inclusion into 3.10.
> 
> Yes, I think we should just do it. It's in use, it's pretty small, and
> the other alternatives are worse. Let's just plan on getting this
> thing done with.
> 
> Al, I realize you may not love this, but can you please give this a
> look? People clearly want to use it. In particular the new interfaces,
> like the inode ops open function with dentry passed in or whatever?
> The changes outside of overlayfs looked fine to me.

I'll post a review tonight or tomorrow.  FWIW, I was not too happy with
it the last time I looked, but I'll obviously need to reread the whole
thing.

I *have* looked at unionmount lately, and the recent modifications dhowells
is doing there are closing most of my problems with that; on the other hand,
there's no fundamental reason why both can't get merged.  Hell, might as
well resurrect aufs, while we are at it...

union-like things are actually on top of my "things to deal with this cycle"
list, closely folowed by rework of ->readdir().

Miklos, two points:
	* I would very much prefer to deal with that (as well as unionmount and
aufs) as git branches _expected_ to be reordered/rebased/folded/mutilated/etc.
while we are sorting all that stuff out.  For now, let's base them on -rc1.
I expect that vfs.git will grow common stem, with bits and pieces of those
guys getting gradually pulled into it, at which point(s) the rest will be
rebased.
	* what Linus just said about bisectablity
Oh, and the third one - I still owe you a bottle of your choice for sorting
the atomic_open shite out.  Is there any chance you'll be able to attend
LSFS this year?

--
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/