From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Shaya Potter <spotter@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
unionfs@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu
Subject: Re: bug in nfs in 2.6.18-rc5?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:03:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1157040230.11347.31.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44F6F80F.1000202@cs.columbia.edu>
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:54 -0400, Shaya Potter wrote:
> __lookup_hash() ends up calling the underlying fs's lookup op, i.e.
> nfs_lookup()
>
> nfs_lookup() calls nfs_reval_fsid(nd->mnt, dir, &fhandle, &fattr);
>
> see the bug? :)
>
> This doesn't seem like a unionfs bug, as one should be able to call
> lookup_one_len() on an NFS fs.
Did someone start handing out these promises when I wasn't looking?
AFAICS, lookup_one_len() should only be used by the filesystem itself,
or by services like nfsd that have intimate knowledge of the
filesystem's inner workings.
The reason why NFS would like to insist on that nameidata is that we
need to be able to create mountpoints on the fly when we cross from one
filesystem on the server to another. Otherwise, we cannot offer the type
of guarantees that POSIX applications expect, such as the ability to
provide unique permanent inode numbers.
If we're to provide the ability for unionfs to use lookup_one_len() on
NFS, then we will have to error out whenever we hit a case where we
should be creating a new mountpoint. Is that acceptable?
Cheers,
Trond
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-31 16:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-31 14:54 bug in nfs in 2.6.18-rc5? Shaya Potter
2006-08-31 15:20 ` Shaya Potter
2006-08-31 16:03 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2006-08-31 16:24 ` Shaya Potter
2006-08-31 16:43 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-08-31 16:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-08-31 17:33 ` Trond Myklebust
2006-08-31 16:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=1157040230.11347.31.camel@localhost \
--to=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=spotter@cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=unionfs@fsl.cs.sunysb.edu \
/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