' ; virtio...@redhat.com;
> > qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 0/2] virtiofsd: Two fix for xattr operation
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:51:20AM +, misono.tomoh...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > > > Doing unshare(CLONE_FS) after thr
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Hajnoczi [mailto:stefa...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 6:41 PM
> To: Misono, Tomohiro/味曽野 智礼
> Cc: 'Miklos Szeredi' ; virtio...@redhat.com;
> qemu-devel@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 0/
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 08:51:20AM +, misono.tomoh...@fujitsu.com wrote:
> > Doing unshare(CLONE_FS) after thread startup seems safe, though must be
> > careful to change the working directory to the root of
> > the mount
> > *before* starting any threads.
>
> I think working directry is chan
> > Even simpler: allow O_PATH descriptors for f*xattr().
>
> Attached patch. Will post shortly.
>
> However, I think it would make sense to fix virtiofsd as well, as this will
> take time to percolate down, even if Al doesn't find
> anything wrong with it.
Thanks for you comments.
Though I'm
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 09:16:36AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:48 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> > Even simpler: allow O_PATH descriptors for f*xattr().
>
> Attached patch. Will post shortly.
>
> However, I think it would make sense to fix virtiofsd as well, as this
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:48 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> Even simpler: allow O_PATH descriptors for f*xattr().
Attached patch. Will post shortly.
However, I think it would make sense to fix virtiofsd as well, as this
will take time to percolate down, even if Al doesn't find anything
wrong with
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:09 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:23:57PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM Stefan Hajnoczi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:23:57PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I test xattr operation on virtiofs using xfstest generic/062
> > > (with -o xa
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:25 PM Vivek Goyal wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:23:57PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM Stefan Hajnoczi
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I tes
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:23:57PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I test xattr operation on virtiofs using xfstest generic/062
> > > (with -o xa
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:23 PM Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> I see why this is being done, and it's not easy to fix properly
> without the ..at() versions of these syscalls. One idea is to fork()
> + fchdir(lo->proc_self_fd) + ..xattr(). Another related idea is to do
> a unshare(CLONE_FS) after each
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:05 PM Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I test xattr operation on virtiofs using xfstest generic/062
> > (with -o xattr option and XFS backend) and see some problems.
> >
> > These patches fixes
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 07:37:52PM +0900, Misono Tomohiro wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I test xattr operation on virtiofs using xfstest generic/062
> (with -o xattr option and XFS backend) and see some problems.
>
> These patches fixes the two of the problems.
>
> The remaining problems are:
> 1. we can
Hello,
I test xattr operation on virtiofs using xfstest generic/062
(with -o xattr option and XFS backend) and see some problems.
These patches fixes the two of the problems.
The remaining problems are:
1. we cannot xattr to block device created by mknod
which does not have actual device (s
14 matches
Mail list logo
