From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20330C0044D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:40:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED0A2077C for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="blgspiyR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732429AbgCPTkX (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:40:23 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.74]:26327 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-74.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732413AbgCPTkX (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:40:23 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 5112 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:40:22 EDT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1584387622; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IXOVlQrf9gUik+N/bCY2n71wJwdX4EpfIGutgn70zIg=; b=blgspiyR8yU10Ejz3vI4NzQFFCp5GO90U1XcbKw7I1Hp9owxF2D/jRk/YIpB8MBTVj/mgV 1TZFl2wmpJYNXEJKrLn/F9GcRlh7PhGSKYfTj6uXaSUw1SSRfRQz8v7pjGR90sZMkghLNy pQHpmCgXHjMCEToaNt5gnpIItXZ2ygA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-80-VoHrmuXlPgevcobTcPbHNA-1; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:40:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: VoHrmuXlPgevcobTcPbHNA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B24D107ACC4; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:40:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from horse.redhat.com (ovpn-121-211.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.121.211]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B289E60BFB; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:40:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by horse.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 10451) id 0A76C2234E4; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:40:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:40:17 -0400 From: Vivek Goyal To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Miklos Szeredi , Miklos Szeredi , overlayfs , linux-fsdevel Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ovl: alllow remote upper Message-ID: <20200316194017.GC4013@redhat.com> References: <20200131115004.17410-1-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200131115004.17410-5-mszeredi@redhat.com> <20200204145951.GC11631@redhat.com> <20200316175453.GB4013@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 09:02:32PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: [..] > > > Could you please make sure that the code in ovl-strict-upper branch > > > works as expected for virtio as upper fs? > > > > Hi Amir, > > > > Right now it fails becuase virtiofs doesn't seem to support tmpfile yet. > > > > overlayfs: upper fs does not support tmpfile > > overlayfs: upper fs missing required features. > > > > Will have to check what's required to support it. > > > > I also wanted to run either overlay xfstests or unionmount-testsuite. But > > none of these seem to give me enough flexibility where I can specify > > that overlayfs needs to be mounted on top of virtiofs. > > > > I feel that atleast for unionmount-testsuite, there should be an > > option where we can simply give a target directory and tests run > > on that directory and user mounts that directory as needed. > > > > Need to see how patches look. > Don't want too much configuration complexity, but I agree that some > flexibly is needed. > Maybe the provided target directory should be the upper/work basedir? > > > > I have rebased it on latest overlayfs-next merge into current master. > > > > > > I would very much prefer that the code merged to v5.7-rc1 will be more > > > restrictive than the current overlayfs-next. > > > > In general I agree that if we want to not support some configuration > > with remote upper, this is the time to introduce that restriction > > otherwise we will later run into backward compatibility issue. > > > > Having said that, tmpfile support for upper sounds like a nice to > > have feature. Not sure why to make it mandatory. > > > > Agreed, I just went automatic on all the warnings. > tmpfile should not be a requirement for upper. > Could you please verify that if dropping the tmpfile strict check, > virtio can be used as upper. I dropped tmpfile strict check and now I can mount overlayfs using virtiofs as upper. Tried few basic file operations and these are working. Vivek