linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/file.c between commit: d46b7cd68336 ("ovl: plumb through flush method") from the overlayfs tree and commit: ae7db6c8bc98 ("ovl: remove unneeded ioctls") from the vfs tree. I fixed it up (see below) and

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:04:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > First of all, I'm still not at all convinced that this "noaccount" thing is > sane, especially since path_open() is exported. But that aside, > __get_empty_filp() > needs to be shot, just for the name and calling conventions alone. > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 04:04:55PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > First of all, I'm still not at all convinced that this "noaccount" thing is > sane, especially since path_open() is exported. But that aside, > __get_empty_filp() > needs to be shot, just for the name and calling conventions alone. > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:17:36AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > --- a/fs/open.c > +++ b/fs/open.c > @@@ -731,7 -732,6 +721,7 @@@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file * > static const struct file_operations empty_fops = {}; > int error; > > - WARN_ON(f->f_mode &

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:17:36AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > --- a/fs/open.c > +++ b/fs/open.c > @@@ -731,7 -732,6 +721,7 @@@ static int do_dentry_open(struct file * > static const struct file_operations empty_fops = {}; > int error; > > - WARN_ON(f->f_mode &

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: include/linux/fs.h between commit: 5c299f73cc9e ("vfs: add path_open()") from the overlayfs tree and commit: bfd4fa6990f0 ("turn filp_clone_open() into inline wrapper for dentry_open()") from the vfs tree. I fixed it

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: include/linux/fs.h between commit: 5c299f73cc9e ("vfs: add path_open()") from the overlayfs tree and commit: bfd4fa6990f0 ("turn filp_clone_open() into inline wrapper for dentry_open()") from the vfs tree. I fixed it

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got conflicts in: fs/open.c between commit: d4d6f39c507e ("vfs: optionally don't account file in nr_files") 88498a6bd8d1 ("vfs: simplify dentry_open()") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 5f0cc0005d2e ("introduce FMODE_OPENED")

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got conflicts in: fs/open.c between commit: d4d6f39c507e ("vfs: optionally don't account file in nr_files") 88498a6bd8d1 ("vfs: simplify dentry_open()") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 5f0cc0005d2e ("introduce FMODE_OPENED")

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM, David Howells wrote: > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> /* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */ >> #define MS_SUBMOUNT (1<<26) >> -#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK (1<<27) >> #define MS_NOSEC (1<<28) >> #define MS_BORN (1<<29) >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:40 AM, David Howells wrote: > Stephen Rothwell wrote: > >> /* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */ >> #define MS_SUBMOUNT (1<<26) >> -#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK (1<<27) >> #define MS_NOSEC (1<<28) >> #define MS_BORN (1<<29) >>

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Stephen Rothwell wrote: > /* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */ > #define MS_SUBMOUNT (1<<26) > -#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK (1<<27) > #define MS_NOSEC (1<<28) > #define MS_BORN (1<<29) > #define MS_ACTIVE(1<<30) Ummm... Can MS_NOREMOTELOCK be removed?

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Stephen Rothwell wrote: > /* These sb flags are internal to the kernel */ > #define MS_SUBMOUNT (1<<26) > -#define MS_NOREMOTELOCK (1<<27) > #define MS_NOSEC (1<<28) > #define MS_BORN (1<<29) > #define MS_ACTIVE(1<<30) Ummm... Can MS_NOREMOTELOCK be removed?

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: include/uapi/linux/fs.h between commit: 1d91ca426d8d ("Partially revert "locks: fix file locking on overlayfs"") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 28514d1edad4 ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: include/uapi/linux/fs.h between commit: 1d91ca426d8d ("Partially revert "locks: fix file locking on overlayfs"") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 28514d1edad4 ("vfs: Suppress MS_* flag defs within the kernel unless

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got conflicts in: include/linux/fs.h between commit: e8f97b0a52b3 ("vfs: optionally don't account file in nr_files") from the overlayfs tree and commit: db39e40a9682 ("new syscall: open_tree(2)") from the vfs tree. I fixed it up (see

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got conflicts in: include/linux/fs.h between commit: e8f97b0a52b3 ("vfs: optionally don't account file in nr_files") from the overlayfs tree and commit: db39e40a9682 ("new syscall: open_tree(2)") from the vfs tree. I fixed it up (see

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Tue, 29 May 2018 11:30:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/read_write.c > > between commit: > > 63ea46a359b2 ("vfs: dedupe: extract helper for a single dedup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Tue, 29 May 2018 11:30:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/read_write.c > > between commit: > > 63ea46a359b2 ("vfs: dedupe: extract helper for a single dedup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Tue, 29 May 2018 11:30:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/read_write.c > > between commit: > > 63ea46a359b2 ("vfs: dedupe: extract helper for a single dedup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit: > >

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Tue, 29 May 2018 11:30:35 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/read_write.c > > between commit: > > 63ea46a359b2 ("vfs: dedupe: extract helper for a single dedup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit: > >

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/read_write.c between commit: 63ea46a359b2 ("vfs: dedupe: extract helper for a single dedup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 227627114799 ("fs: avoid fdput() after failed fdget() in vfs_dedupe_file_range()")

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/read_write.c between commit: 63ea46a359b2 ("vfs: dedupe: extract helper for a single dedup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 227627114799 ("fs: avoid fdput() after failed fdget() in vfs_dedupe_file_range()")

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:31:55 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/dcache.c > > between commit: > > f9c34674bc60 ("vfs: factor out helpers d_instantiate_anon() and > d_alloc_anon()") > > from

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:31:55 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/dcache.c > > between commit: > > f9c34674bc60 ("vfs: factor out helpers d_instantiate_anon() and > d_alloc_anon()") > > from the overlayfs tree and

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:31:55 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > + if (!disconnected) { > -hlist_bl_lock(>d_sb->s_roots); > -hlist_bl_add_head(>d_hash, >d_sb->s_roots); > -hlist_bl_unlock(>d_sb->s_roots); > ++

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi all, On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 14:31:55 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > + if (!disconnected) { > -hlist_bl_lock(>d_sb->s_roots); > -hlist_bl_add_head(>d_hash, >d_sb->s_roots); > -hlist_bl_unlock(>d_sb->s_roots); > ++

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/dcache.c between commit: f9c34674bc60 ("vfs: factor out helpers d_instantiate_anon() and d_alloc_anon()") from the overlayfs tree and commit: f1ee616214cb ("VFS: don't keep disconnected dentries on d_anon") from

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/dcache.c between commit: f9c34674bc60 ("vfs: factor out helpers d_instantiate_anon() and d_alloc_anon()") from the overlayfs tree and commit: f1ee616214cb ("VFS: don't keep disconnected dentries on d_anon") from

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commits: 7c84d842e11e ("ovl: reduce the number of arguments for ovl_workdir_create()") 17d554474412 ("ovl: rename ufs to ofs") from the overlayfs tree and commit: c2c6773f9942 ("VFS: Roll

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commits: 7c84d842e11e ("ovl: reduce the number of arguments for ovl_workdir_create()") 17d554474412 ("ovl: rename ufs to ofs") from the overlayfs tree and commit: c2c6773f9942 ("VFS: Roll

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c between commit: 4a756233184d ("Revert "ovl: Warn on copy up if a process has a R/O fd open to the lower file"") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 450630975da9 ("don't open-code file_inode()")

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c between commit: 4a756233184d ("Revert "ovl: Warn on copy up if a process has a R/O fd open to the lower file"") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 450630975da9 ("don't open-code file_inode()")

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/dir.c between commits: 659f95a46dd0 ("ovl: add ovl_dentry_is_whiteout()") ee2e4303d554 ("ovl: opaque cleanup") f7cd4e7b2743 ("ovl: clean up kstat usage") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 718324db4435

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/dir.c between commits: 659f95a46dd0 ("ovl: add ovl_dentry_is_whiteout()") ee2e4303d554 ("ovl: opaque cleanup") f7cd4e7b2743 ("ovl: clean up kstat usage") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 718324db4435

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: 2b6bc7f48d34 ("ovl: lookup: do getxattr with mounter's permission") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 5d6c31910bc0 ("xattr: Add __vfs_{get,set,remove}xattr helpers") from the vfs

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: 2b6bc7f48d34 ("ovl: lookup: do getxattr with mounter's permission") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 5d6c31910bc0 ("xattr: Add __vfs_{get,set,remove}xattr helpers") from the vfs

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:24:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Al, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: >> >> fs/overlayfs/super.c >> >> between commit: >> >> e2475b7276d0 ("ovl:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:24:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Al, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: >> >> fs/overlayfs/super.c >> >> between commit: >> >> e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:24:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/overlayfs/super.c > > between commit: > > e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on underlying lookup") > > from the overlayfs tree and

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:24:53AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/overlayfs/super.c > > between commit: > > e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on underlying lookup") > > from the overlayfs tree and

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on underlying lookup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: b3ac9a85b31c ("qstr: constify instances in overlayfs") from the vfs tree. I fixed

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: e2475b7276d0 ("ovl: check mounter creds on underlying lookup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: b3ac9a85b31c ("qstr: constify instances in overlayfs") from the vfs tree. I fixed

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: 420598d5bf9c ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: b9e1d435fdf4 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()") from the vfs

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: 420598d5bf9c ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: b9e1d435fdf4 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()") from the vfs

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Al, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: >> >> fs/overlayfs/super.c >> >> between commit: >> >> d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:08 AM, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi Al, >> >> Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: >> >> fs/overlayfs/super.c >> >> between commit: >> >> d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:08:39AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Should use lookup_one_len_unlocked(), actually. lookup_hash() is > a microoptimization, losing a lot more on excessive i_mutex contention. > Either variant works, though. PS: if anybody has a better name for lookup_one_len_unlocked(),

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 02:08:39AM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > Should use lookup_one_len_unlocked(), actually. lookup_hash() is > a microoptimization, losing a lot more on excessive i_mutex contention. > Either variant works, though. PS: if anybody has a better name for lookup_one_len_unlocked(),

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/overlayfs/super.c > > between commit: > > d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit:

Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:59:43AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Al, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > fs/overlayfs/super.c > > between commit: > > d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") > > from the overlayfs tree and commit:

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 5cf3e7fecb43 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()") from the vfs

linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the overlayfs tree

Hi Al, Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: fs/overlayfs/super.c between commit: d478d6a8b8b7 ("ovl: ignore permissions on underlying lookup") from the overlayfs tree and commit: 5cf3e7fecb43 ("ovl_lookup_real(): use lookup_one_len_unlocked()") from the vfs