From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/38] union-mount: Support for mounting union mount
 file systems
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:12:17 +0800
Message-ID: <1279595537.2979.10.camel@localhost>
References: <1276627208-17242-1-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com>
	 <1276627208-17242-22-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com>
	 <20100713044701.GF3949@zeus.themaw.net>  <20100716210226.GD21201@shell>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Jan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
To: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:53550 "EHLO
	out1.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757941Ab0GTDMZ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:12:25 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20100716210226.GD21201@shell>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:02 -0400, Valerie Aurora wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:47:02PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:39:51AM -0700, Valerie Aurora wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static int
> > > +check_mnt_union(struct path *mntpnt, struct vfsmount *topmost_mnt, int mnt_flags)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct vfsmount *lower_mnt = mntpnt->mnt;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!(mnt_flags & MNT_UNION))
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_UNION_MOUNT
> > > +	return -EINVAL;
> > > +#endif
> > > +	if (!(lower_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))
> > > +		return -EBUSY;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!list_empty(&lower_mnt->mnt_mounts))
> > > +		return -EBUSY;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!IS_ROOT(mntpnt->dentry))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	if (mnt_flags & MNT_READONLY)
> > > +		return -EROFS;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!(topmost_mnt->mnt_sb->s_flags & MS_WHITEOUT))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > 
> > Is there a need to check fallthru, umm ... that probably doesn't
> > apply for the ROOT(), right?
> 
> Actually, that's on my todo list - right now I'm assuming MS_WHITEOUT
> implies fallthru support as well.  But it doesn't.
> 
> We're a little short on MS_* flags.  I'm thinking of just checking
> ->whiteout and ->fallthru for non-NULL on the root dir and getting rid
> of MS_WHITEOUT entirely.  Thoughts?

Checking for the methods is a good idea I think, since they are assumed
to be present by the code, at least in some places.

Although it shouldn't happen, it is possible for a file system to create
the root dentry with these methods defined but other dentrys without
them defined, so a file system implementation error could cause some
unpleasant crashes. Maybe requiring the flags to indicate support would
help avoid unpleasant implementation problems like this, not sure
really. 

Also not sure if a method existence check should always be made prior to
use, regardless.

Ian