From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Valerie Aurora Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/39] union-mount: Implement union lookup Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:44:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20100817214404.GH5556@shell> References: <1281282776-5447-1-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> <1281282776-5447-20-git-send-email-vaurora@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jblunck@suse.de, hch@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: Miklos Szeredi Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:49:04PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote: > > Implement unioned directories, whiteouts, and fallthrus in pathname > > lookup routines. do_lookup() and lookup_hash() call lookup_union() > > after looking up the dentry from the top-level file system. > > lookup_union() is centered around __lookup_hash(), which does cached > > and/or real lookups and revalidates each dentry in the union stack. > > > > XXX - implement negative union cache entries > > > > XXX - handle different permissions on directories > > If process doing the lookup doesn't have write permission on the top > level directory then the lookup will fail. This is not intended, is > it? Does it fail? I'm not checking permissions before calling ->fallthru(). But I can't test this because the code doesn't set the owner of the copied up directory correctly. :) Don't bother doing any permission testing on this version - it's known buggy and I will fix it in the next release. Thanks, -VAL