From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754608AbdBFQYo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:24:44 -0500
Received: from mail01-md.ns.itscom.net ([175.177.155.111]:35536 "EHLO
        mail01-md.ns.itscom.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753532AbdBFQYk (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:24:40 -0500
From: "J. R. Okajima" <hooanon05g@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] shiftfs: uid/gid shifting bind mount
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@gmail.com>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Dongsu Park <dongsu@endocode.com>,
        David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@googlemail.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        Alban Crequy <alban.crequy@gmail.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>, Phil Estes <estesp@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1486363583.2496.63.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
References: <1486235880.2484.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1486235972.2484.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <4608.1486351540@jrobl> <1486363583.2496.63.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 01:24:37 +0900
Message-ID: <23764.1486398277@jrobl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

James Bottomley:
> Yes, I know the problem.  However, I believe most current linux
> filesystems no longer guarantee stable, for the lifetime of the file,
> inode numbers.  The usual docker container root is overlayfs, which,
> similarly doesn't support stable inode numbers.  I see the odd
> complaint about docker with overlayfs having unstable inode numbers,
> but none seems to have any serious repercussions.

I think it serious.
Reusing the backend fs' inum is a good approach which Amir wrote.
Based on this, I'd suggest you to support the hardlinks.

bakend_dentry = lookup_one_len()
if (d_inode->i_nlink != 1)
	shiftfs_inode = ilookup();
if (!shiftfs_inode) {
	shiftfs_inode = new_inode();
	shiftfs_inode->i_ino = bakend_dentry->d_inode->i_ino;
}


J. R. Okajima