Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:00:02 +0000 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6 v7] overlay filesystem - request for inclusion |
| |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 07:58:17PM +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > 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.
In which *order* on the upper fs?
> Protection is exactly as for userspace callers. AFAICT.
Pardon? You traverse the chain of ancestors; fine, but who says it stays anywhere near being relevant as you go?
| |