On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:26 PM Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 09:11:23AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What I would rather see is:
> > > > - Non-volatile: first syncfs in every container gets an error (nice to
> > > > have)
> > >
> > > I am not sure why are we makin
On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 09:11:23AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > >
> > > What I would rather see is:
> > > - Non-volatile: first syncfs in every container gets an error (nice to
> > > have)
> >
> > I am not sure why are we making this behavior per container. This should
> > be no different from
> >
> > What I would rather see is:
> > - Non-volatile: first syncfs in every container gets an error (nice to have)
>
> I am not sure why are we making this behavior per container. This should
> be no different from current semantics we have for syncfs() on regular
> filesystem. And that will prov
On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 5:40 PM Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:22:07PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > Since Jeff's patch is minimal, I think that it should be the fix applied
> > > > first and proposed for stable (with adaptations for non-volatile
> > > > overlay).
> > >
>
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 11:42:51PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 5:40 PM Vivek Goyal wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:22:07PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > > Since Jeff's patch is minimal, I think that it should be the fix
> > > > > applied
> > > > > first
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:20:27PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Currently syncfs() and fsync() seem to be two interfaces which check and
> > return writeback errors on superblock to user space. fsync() should
> > work fine with over
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 03:56:18PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 08:25:50AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > To be clear, the main thing you'll lose with the method above is the
> > ability to see an unseen error on a newly opened fd, if there was an
> > overlayfs mount using
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 05:51:06PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 3:25 PM Jeff Layton wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2020-12-25 at 08:50 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 2:13 PM Matthew Wilcox
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:32:55
On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:22:07PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > Since Jeff's patch is minimal, I think that it should be the fix applied
> > > first and proposed for stable (with adaptations for non-volatile overlay).
> >
> > Does stable fix has to be same as mainline fix. IOW, I think atleas
> > Since Jeff's patch is minimal, I think that it should be the fix applied
> > first and proposed for stable (with adaptations for non-volatile overlay).
>
> Does stable fix has to be same as mainline fix. IOW, I think atleast in
> mainline we should first fix it the right way and then think how
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:44 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:21:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:07:46PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:
On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 20:48 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 09:37:37PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > Having said that, I never objected to the SEEN flag split.
>
> I STRONGLY object to the SEEN flag split. I think it is completely
> unnecessary and nobody's shown me a us
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 7:26 PM Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 15:56 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 08:25:50AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > To be clear, the main thing you'll lose with the method above is the
> > > ability to see an unseen error on a newl
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 09:37:37PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> Having said that, I never objected to the SEEN flag split.
I STRONGLY object to the SEEN flag split. I think it is completely
unnecessary and nobody's shown me a use-case that changes my mind.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 9:26 AM Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 15:56 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 08:25:50AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > To be clear, the main thing you'll lose with the method above is the
> > > ability to see an unseen error on a newl
On Mon, 2020-12-28 at 15:56 +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 08:25:50AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > To be clear, the main thing you'll lose with the method above is the
> > ability to see an unseen error on a newly opened fd, if there was an
> > overlayfs mount using the sam
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 08:25:50AM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> To be clear, the main thing you'll lose with the method above is the
> ability to see an unseen error on a newly opened fd, if there was an
> overlayfs mount using the same upper sb before your open occurred.
>
> IOW, consider two over
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 3:25 PM Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-12-25 at 08:50 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 2:13 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > > In current master, syncfs() on any file by
On Fri, 2020-12-25 at 08:50 +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 2:13 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > > In current master, syncfs() on any file by any container user will
> > > result in full syncfs() of the up
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 2:13 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> > In current master, syncfs() on any file by any container user will
> > result in full syncfs() of the upperfs, which is very bad for container
> > isolation. This has been
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> In current master, syncfs() on any file by any container user will
> result in full syncfs() of the upperfs, which is very bad for container
> isolation. This has been partly fixed by Chengguang Xu [1] and I expect
> his work will be
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 11:32:55AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:44 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:21:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:07:46PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:44 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:21:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:07:46PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:29:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:50
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:21:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:07:46PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:29:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:50:44PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:07:46PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:29:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:50:44PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:20:27PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > > I fail to see why this
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:29:41PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:50:44PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:20:27PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > I fail to see why this is neccessary if you incorporate error reporting
> > > into the
> > >
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:50:44PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:20:27PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > I fail to see why this is neccessary if you incorporate error reporting
> > into the
> > sync_fs callback. Why is this separate from that callback? If you pickup
On Wed, 2020-12-23 at 18:20 +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Currently syncfs() and fsync() seem to be two interfaces which check and
> > return writeback errors on superblock to user space. fsync() should
> > work fine with overlayfs a
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 06:20:27PM +, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> I fail to see why this is neccessary if you incorporate error reporting into
> the
> sync_fs callback. Why is this separate from that callback? If you pickup
> Jeff's
> patch that adds the 2nd flag to errseq for "observed", you sh
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Currently syncfs() and fsync() seem to be two interfaces which check and
> return writeback errors on superblock to user space. fsync() should
> work fine with overlayfs as it relies on underlying filesystem to
> do the check and return
On Tue, 2020-12-22 at 12:55 -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:46:37PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 04:20:27PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 05:46:37PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 04:20:27PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > +static int ovl_errseq_check_
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 04:20:27PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > +static int ovl_errseq_check_advance(struct super_block *sb, struct file
> > > *file)
> > > +{
> > >
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 04:20:27PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > +static int ovl_errseq_check_advance(struct super_block *sb, struct file
> > *file)
> > +{
> > + struct ovl_fs *ofs = sb->s_fs_info;
> > + struct super_block *uppe
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 02:50:55PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> +static int ovl_errseq_check_advance(struct super_block *sb, struct file
> *file)
> +{
> + struct ovl_fs *ofs = sb->s_fs_info;
> + struct super_block *upper_sb;
> + int ret;
> +
> + if (!ovl_upper_mnt(ofs))
> +
Currently syncfs() and fsync() seem to be two interfaces which check and
return writeback errors on superblock to user space. fsync() should
work fine with overlayfs as it relies on underlying filesystem to
do the check and return error. For example, if ext4 is on upper filesystem,
then ext4_sync_f
36 matches
Mail list logo
