From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eryu Guan Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] overlay: use default overlay mount options _overlay_mount_dirs() Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:05:49 +0800 Message-ID: <20170927080549.GM8034@eguan.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1506495852-7295-1-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> <1506495852-7295-3-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:22120 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751787AbdI0IFx (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 04:05:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-unionfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Vivek Goyal , Miklos Szeredi , overlayfs , fstests On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:50:46AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > Tests that use _overlay_mount_dirs() should also use the > > default overlay mount options. > > Vivek, Eryu, > > I should make a disclaimer here: I did not test with SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS > because I have no SELinux in my test setup. > > Specifically, I am concerned that tests that compose "special" overlay mounts, > like tmpfs mounts and stacked overlay mounts (overlay/029) may not play well > with SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS applied to the special mounts. > I am less concerned about the tests that were converted to use > _overlay_scratch_mount_dirs() helper. > > Can either of you run a -g overlay/quick test with this series and valid > SELINUX_MOUNT_OPTIONS? Sure, I'll do the testings anyway, and I have selinux enabled on my test vms. I noticed the overlay mount option mess too when I was reviewing MOUNT_OPTIONS fixes for btrfs from Gu Jinxiang last week. I was hoping to refactor the whole mount option handling through fstests. Perhaps this patchset is good start toward that direction. I'll test and review them. Thanks! Eryu