[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6 v7] overlay filesystem - request for inclusion
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Al Viro <> wrote:
> >
> > Locking analysis would be really nice; AFAICS, it violates locking order
> > when called from e.g. ->setattr()

Locking order is always:

-> overlayfs locks
-> upper fs locks
-> lower fs locks

So it's really pretty simple and easy to validate.

> > and its protection against renames is
> > nowhere near enough.  I might be missing something subtle, but...

Protection is exactly as for userspace callers. AFAICT.

> Miklos - have you tried using this with lockdep (together with the
> same filesystems mounted natively too)? I'd expect that that should
> show any bad lock usage..

Ah, lockdep. I have tried, but there seems to be always something
that triggers it at boot time on my laptop, which makes it useless. I
could find some other machine to test this on, though.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-22 20:01    [W:0.061 / U:16.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site