From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
overlayfs <linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ovl: return error on mount if metacopy cannot be enabled
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:56:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181031195643.GA3382@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181031192341.GA3093@redhat.com>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:23:41PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 08:37:04PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 6:39 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but keep in mind that strict=off will NOT be applied to stable
> > > > v4.19.y *unless* a real user really reports a bug, a-priori, we assume
> > > > that implicit metacopy=on => redirect_dir=on,strict=on is sufficient
> > > > to solve the bug, so it is sufficient for stable.
> > >
> > > Did not understand this. So strict=on will be in stable or not? I mean,
> > > all the behavior strict=on enforces will be in 4.19 or not.
> > >
> > > If it is not, then it will become backward compatibility issue by the
> > > time 4.20 releases.
> > >
> > > If strict=on is not part of 4.19 stable, then you can't switch it
> > > on in 4.20.
> > >
> > > What am I missing.
> > >
> >
> > I guess I haven't thought this through. Let's see:
> >
> > 1.a. In 4.19, specifying metacopy=on will result in metacopy=on
> > OR -EINVAL (a.k.a. "the bug fix") [*]
> >
> > 1.b. In 4.19, user will not be able to mount with metacopy=on with
> > an upper fs that does not support xattr/d_type/RENAME_WHITEOUT.
>
> Ok, so metacopy will trigger strict=on internally. And that in-turn
> will trigger all the checks on upper fs (xattr/d_type/RENAME_WHITEOUT).
>
> >
> > 1.d. In 4.19, mount will fail if given mount option metacopy=on and
> > nfs_export is enabled (even if enabled by default) or if redirect_dir
> > is disabled (even if disabled by default).
>
> Ok, so no automatic enable/disable of redirect_dir/nfs_export options.
>
> >
> > 1.d. In 4.19, mount will fail if given mount option metacopy=on,
> > index is enabled (even if enabled by default) and underlying fs does
> > not support file handles.
>
> Ok, so index might be enabled by default but we will not disable it
> because metacopy=on has triggered strict behavior.
Hi Amir,
Thinking more about it. What does strict=on mean for default behavior
of a knob (configured using module param or Kconfig). Will it mean
that default value of knob can't be changed either (disabled if need be).
IOW, strict=on will mean that all values of options will be static
and can't be changed. It does not matter where these came from.
(Override ordering between Kconfig/module/mount option will still be
there).
If that's the case, then metacopy=on (hence strict=on) and auto enabling
of redirect_dir are contradictory. Given strict is on, we are not supposed
to change the default value as it came from Kconfig/module?
Similarly, we can't disable nfs_export if metacopy=on.
IOW, If we limit "strict=on" to values passed as part of mount options,
then it will allow to change default values of other options as needed.
But if "strict=on" means default values can't be changed, then auto
enabling/disabling of redirect_dir/nfs_export is not possible?
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-31 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-31 11:10 [PATCH v2] ovl: return error on mount if metacopy cannot be enabled Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 11:48 ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-10-31 12:19 ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-10-31 12:26 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 12:35 ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-10-31 12:37 ` Miklos Szeredi
2018-10-31 13:42 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 14:05 ` Vivek Goyal
2018-10-31 13:29 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 13:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2018-10-31 14:05 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 14:17 ` Vivek Goyal
2018-10-31 15:31 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 15:39 ` Vivek Goyal
2018-10-31 16:04 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 16:39 ` Vivek Goyal
2018-10-31 18:37 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 19:23 ` Vivek Goyal
2018-10-31 19:56 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2018-10-31 20:24 ` Amir Goldstein
2018-10-31 21:24 ` Vivek Goyal
2018-10-31 22:16 ` Amir Goldstein
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181031195643.GA3382@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox