[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87frvay47x.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:01:54 -0700
From: Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: brauner@...nel.org, amir73il@...il.com, hu1.chen@...el.com,
malini.bhandaru@...el.com, tim.c.chen@...el.com, mikko.ylinen@...el.com,
lizhen.you@...el.com, linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] overlayfs: Optimize override/revert creds
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu> writes:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 04:18, Vinicius Costa Gomes
> <vinicius.gomes@...el.com> wrote:
>
>> - in ovl_rename() I had to manually call the "light" the overrides,
>> both using the guard() macro or using the non-light version causes
>> the workload to crash the kernel. I still have to investigate why
>> this is happening. Hints are appreciated.
>
> Don't know. Well, there's nesting (in ovl_nlink_end()) but I don't
> see why that should be an issue.
>
> I see why Amir suggested moving away from scoped guards, but that also
> introduces the possibility of subtle bugs if we don't audit every one
> of those sites carefully...
>
> Maybe patchset should be restructured to first do the
> override_creds_light() conversion without guards, and then move over
> to guards. Or the other way round, I don't have a preference. But
> mixing these two independent changes doesn't sound like a great idea
> in any case.
Sounds good. Here's I am thinking:
patch 1: introduce *_creds_light()
patch 2: move backing-file.c to *_creds_light()
patch 3: move overlayfs to *_creds_light()
patch 4: introduce the guard helpers
patch 5: move backing-file.c to the guard helpers
patch 6: move overlayfs to the guard helpers
(and yeah, the subject of the patches will be better than these ;-)
Is this what you had in mind?
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
Powered by blists - more mailing lists