From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4B2C433DF for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:39:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E9F2078A for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="HrXvEgAl" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 12E9F2078A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=infradead.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AEA9F6B0002; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A9B3F6B0003; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:39:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 9D68C6B0005; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:39:04 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0035.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8783A6B0002 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:39:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A4CC180AD81A for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:39:04 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76924445808.23.fowl86_380459826de5 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin23.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2135737604 for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:39:04 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: fowl86_380459826de5 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2684 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by imf13.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:39:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version :References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=/UHutX/651XYnkKnM6NBQmM9y2YAVAGn9Ikzmv3dpFY=; b=HrXvEgAlgagihhn3EqpqltDMf7 yF996n0G0Pn33lzbHmvYhJYxdX2LWPBDe6SDuGDCM+YcT+arcaXMJahc6LeqQE4Q19kpbVQaywGjA AEil84nspQ/yWQG2TqX9ZXrtBpcoQLafN9wkXGtkL94oRtyKbPSQ8Fe8tsJMAfXQIqo6/InSiuK4F vFnwAIPXCAE+QjvYyyUAa+PauVeEYpQRXNqinEPUqfkH8EV6I165Sf+KTYdSmJAnoE3ECKgLsNXe3 umf9gEUQdltUqPK5yO8hvMvM4JUf40Whej0I8TbZMumrTv0bbCHMpmeyo8ADEF7sM8p2BlfwLvORb n+239RWg==; Received: from willy by bombadil.infradead.org with local (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1jk7J8-0001SL-DS; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:38:54 +0000 Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 07:38:54 -0700 From: Matthew Wilcox To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Mike Kravetz , Al Viro , Linux MM , linux-fsdevel , overlayfs , linux-kernel , Miklos Szeredi , Colin Walters , Andrew Morton , syzbot , syzkaller-bugs Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] hugetlb: use f_mode & FMODE_HUGETLBFS to identify hugetlbfs files Message-ID: <20200613143854.GN8681@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20200612004644.255692-1-mike.kravetz@oracle.com> <20200612015842.GC23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2135737604 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 09:53:24AM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > Currently, the only in-tree stacking fs are overlayfs and ecryptfs, but there > are some out of tree implementations as well (shiftfs). > So you may only take that option if you do not care about the combination > of hugetlbfs with any of the above. I could see shiftfs being interesting, maybe. I don't really see the usecase for layering overlayfs or ecryptfs on top of a ram-based filesystem.