lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/7 v3] overlay: hybrid overlay filesystem prototype
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:11:53AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, Valerie Aurora wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:04:10PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
> > >
> > > This overlay filesystem is a hybrid of entirely filesystem based
> > > (unionfs, aufs) and entierly VFS based (union mounts) solutions.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > +static int ovl_create_object(struct dentry *dentry, int mode, dev_t rdev,
> > > + const char *link)
> > > +{
> > > + int err;
> > > + struct dentry *newdentry;
> > > + struct dentry *upperdir;
> > > + struct inode *inode;
> > > + struct kstat stat = {
> > > + .mode = mode,
> > > + .rdev = rdev,
> > > + };
> > > +
> > > + err = -ENOMEM;
> > > + inode = ovl_new_inode(dentry->d_sb, mode);
> > > + if (!inode)
> > > + goto out;
> > > +
> > > + err = ovl_copy_up(dentry->d_parent);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + goto out_iput;
> > > +
> > > + upperdir = ovl_dentry_upper(dentry->d_parent);
> > > + mutex_lock_nested(&upperdir->d_inode->i_mutex, I_MUTEX_PARENT);
> > > +
> > > + newdentry = ovl_upper_create(upperdir, dentry, &stat, link);
> > > + err = PTR_ERR(newdentry);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(newdentry))
> > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > +
> > > + if (ovl_dentry_is_opaque(dentry) && S_ISDIR(mode)) {
> > > + err = ovl_set_opaque(newdentry);
> > > + if (err)
> > > + goto out_dput;
> > > + }
> >
> > Andreas Gruenbacher just convinced me that every single new directory
> > created in the unioned file system should be marked opaque. "New"
> > means either it replaces a whiteout or has no matching directory on
> > the lower layer. The theory is that the topmost file system changes
> > should take precedence and override any changes (off-line) in the
> > lower file system.
>
> That's logical. However marking new directories opaque is only a half
> solution. E.g. consider the case when we have /a/b/c/ on the lower fs
> and /a/b/ on the upper, which is not opaque. Then /a/b/c/ is created
> on the upper fs off-line. The union logic can't notice that "c"
> should really be opaque and will merge with the contents of the lower
> layer.

Maybe I don't understand. It seems like directories created when the
file system is *not* union mounted should definitely be merged with
matching directories on the lower layer.

Take the case of /etc/fstab. The first union mount never touches /etc
and it doesn't exist on the topmost layer. Then we unmount the upper
layer, mount it somewhere else as a plain mount, and create /etc/ and
/etc/fstab. When we union mount it back over the lower layer again,
we still want the lower layer /etc/ to be merged with the topmost
/etc/, or else init.d will disappear.

However, if while the file system is union mounted, /etc/ doesn't
exist, and /etc/ is created, a later mount shouldn't merge a newly
created /etc/ on the lower layer.

> The real solution to this problem is to make opaque the default and
> only mark *non* opaque directories. These are only created on copy-up
> or by explicit admin action on the upper fs.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this doesn't make much sense to
me. Say I create:

/upper/a_dir/upper_file
/lower/a_dir/lower_file

Then when I union mount them, I want a_dir/ to be transparent
automatically and show both upper_file and lower_file, without marking
it manually.

-VAL


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-27 20:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans