[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180611060950.GA8048@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2018 23:09:50 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] overlayfs update for 4.18
On Sat, Jun 09, 2018 at 02:42:20PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And Christoph's copmmentary isn't really helping the situation.
> Christoph, I haven't seen the NAK history, can you elaborate?
Most of the bits just need a bit of refinement I think, instead of
being forced through the overlayfs tree and are generally fine.
The pre_mmap hook I think is a clear no-go. We've had this tried
multiple times and always rejected it. Unlike previous uses the
overlayfs use isn't outright broken, but still questionalable
as it will still lead to a copyup that "leaks" if the actual mmap
wasn't successfull. The whole discussion of how mmap happens,
how we deal with mmap_sem and failures needs a broader discussion
with all MM and VFS folks first.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists