On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Miklos Szeredi <mik...@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> @@ -880,31 +913,34 @@ static int ovl_rename(struct inode *olddir, struct
>>>> dentry *old,
>>>> if (WARN_ON(olddentry->d_inode == newdentry->d_inode))
>>>> goto out_dput;
>>>>
>>>> - if (is_dir && !old_opaque && ovl_lower_positive(new)) {
>>>> - err = ovl_set_opaque(olddentry);
>>>> - if (err)
>>>> - goto out_dput;
>>>> - ovl_dentry_set_opaque(old, true);
>>>> + if (is_dir) {
>>>> + if (ovl_type_merge_or_lower(old)) {
>>>> + err = ovl_set_redirect(old);
>>>
>>> There is a fair chance of getting ENOSPC/EDQUOT here and confuse user space.
>>> Would it be better to convert these non fatal errors with EXDEV, so
>>> user space will
>>> gracefully fallback to recursive rename/clone/copy?
>>
>> Recursive copy up will surely consume more space than an xattr?
>
> Surely. But that is not what I meant.
> In Ext4, for example, the total size of extended attributes for an
> inode is limited to a single block,
> so you can get ENOSPC with alot of free space in the file system.
Ah.
>
> You can also get ERANGE if the redirect path length > 256.
The 256 limit is for the name of the xattr, not the value.
Thanks,
Miklos
