[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJfpegteZatDXOV+6FQKOE9pOA=_FErGRn1Jj1fHUYm_QLb4ew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 10:08:30 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/39] ovl: add O_DIRECT support
On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 04:43:23PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> fs/overlayfs/file.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/file.c b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
>> index 3f610a5b38e4..e5e7ccaaf9ec 100644
>> --- a/fs/overlayfs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/overlayfs/file.c
>> @@ -110,6 +110,9 @@ static int ovl_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>> if (IS_ERR(realfile))
>> return PTR_ERR(realfile);
>>
>> + /* For O_DIRECT dentry_open() checks f_mapping->a_ops->direct_IO */
>> + file->f_mapping = realfile->f_mapping;
>
> Umm... What happens if upper layer doesn't allow O_DIRECT, while the lower one does?
Will get EINVAL on read(2) after copy up. Not sure if it can be
called a regression, since it's a corner case of a corner case.
I think proper solution is to support O_DIRECT unconditionally on
upper (and for the likes of shmfs, just fall back to "cached" I/O).
Thanks,
Miklos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists