From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965301AbeAJL7b (ORCPT + 1 other); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:59:31 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:59408 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965219AbeAJL73 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:59:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 12:59:26 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Yuanliang Wang Cc: Theodore Ts'o , "adilger.kernel" , pkuelelixi , jack , linux-ext4 , linux-kernel Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?5Zue5aSN77yaZXh0NA==?= =?utf-8?Q?=2C?= quota, projectid: limits without capablity Message-ID: <20180110115926.tk6bri37bdjhipc2@quack2.suse.cz> References: <0dc571a8-e1b2-4247-9e9d-df02c0b0d7c6.yuanliang.wyl@alibaba-inc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <0dc571a8-e1b2-4247-9e9d-df02c0b0d7c6.yuanliang.wyl@alibaba-inc.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Hello Wang! On Wed 10-01-18 19:01:03, Yuanliang Wang wrote: > Thank you for your enthusiastic response > > the reason is : > 1、I saw > that ignore_hardlimit allows root to exceed the limit，so should projid > be consistent ? Generally, it should be consistent. ignore_hardlimit is a different thing - you want root to be able to exceed storage space limit but you don't want root to be able to make information inconsistent... > 2、 > In our scenario we will use hardlink to share data between container and host, and between containers > > +------------------+ > | | > | | > +-------------+ | | > | | | | > | | | container | > | +--------------> | | > | | | file A | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | +------------------+ > | | > | | > | | +------------------+ > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | container | > | host file A +---------------> | | > | | | file A | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | +------------------+ > | | > | | +------------------+ > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | | > | +-------------> | container | > | | | | > | | | | > | | | file A | > | | | | > +-------------+ | | > | | > +------------------+ I see but then which project ID does the 'file A' have? Project ID used for neither of the containers is logical... Maybe the file is accessible only read-only in your setup and so you don't care much about quotas for that particular files but still it may be confusing that the file is not accounted to the quota of each particular container. That's the reason why project ID consistence is enforced. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR