Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] overlay filesystem - request for inclusion | From | Miklos Szeredi <> | Date | Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:58:17 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> 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.
Thanks, Miklos -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |