From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
To: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Alexander Larsson <alexl@redhat.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] erofs: don't bother with s_stack_depth increasing for now
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2026 04:42:25 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251231204225.2752893-1-hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
Previously, commit d53cd891f0e4 ("erofs: limit the level of fs stacking
for file-backed mounts") bumped `s_stack_depth` by one to avoid kernel
stack overflow, but it breaks composefs mounts, which need erofs+ovl^2
sometimes (and such setups are already used in production for quite long
time) since `s_stack_depth` can be 3 (i.e., FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH
needs to change from 2 to 3).
After a long discussion on GitHub issues [1] about possible solutions,
it seems there is no need to support nesting file-backed mounts as one
conclusion (especially when increasing FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH to 3).
So let's disallow this right now, since there is always a way to use
loopback devices as a fallback.
Then, I started to wonder about an alternative EROFS quick fix to
address the composefs mounts directly for this cycle: since EROFS is the
only fs to support file-backed mounts and other stacked fses will just
bump up `FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH`, just check that `s_stack_depth`
!= 0 and the backing inode is not from EROFS instead.
At least it works for all known file-backed mount use cases (composefs,
containerd, and Android APEX for some Android vendors), and the fix is
self-contained.
Let's defer increasing FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH for now.
Fixes: d53cd891f0e4 ("erofs: limit the level of fs stacking for file-backed mounts")
Closes: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/2087 [1]
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAFHtUiYv4+=+JP_-JjARWjo6OwcvBj1wtYN=z0QXwCpec9sXtg@mail.gmail.com
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Larsson <alexl@redhat.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
---
fs/erofs/super.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c
index 937a215f626c..0cf41ed7ced8 100644
--- a/fs/erofs/super.c
+++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
@@ -644,14 +644,20 @@ static int erofs_fc_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, struct fs_context *fc)
* fs contexts (including its own) due to self-controlled RO
* accesses/contexts and no side-effect changes that need to
* context save & restore so it can reuse the current thread
- * context. However, it still needs to bump `s_stack_depth` to
- * avoid kernel stack overflow from nested filesystems.
+ * context.
+ * However, we still need to prevent kernel stack overflow due
+ * to filesystem nesting: just ensure that s_stack_depth is 0
+ * to disallow mounting EROFS on stacked filesystems.
+ * Note: s_stack_depth is not incremented here for now, since
+ * EROFS is the only fs supporting file-backed mounts for now.
+ * It MUST change if another fs plans to support them, which
+ * may also require adjusting FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH.
*/
if (erofs_is_fileio_mode(sbi)) {
- sb->s_stack_depth =
- file_inode(sbi->dif0.file)->i_sb->s_stack_depth + 1;
- if (sb->s_stack_depth > FILESYSTEM_MAX_STACK_DEPTH) {
- erofs_err(sb, "maximum fs stacking depth exceeded");
+ inode = file_inode(sbi->dif0.file);
+ if (inode->i_sb->s_op == &erofs_sops ||
+ inode->i_sb->s_stack_depth) {
+ erofs_err(sb, "file-backed mounts cannot be applied to stacked fses");
return -ENOTBLK;
}
}
--
2.43.5
next reply other threads:[~2025-12-31 20:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-31 20:42 Gao Xiang [this message]
2026-01-01 15:52 ` Amir Goldstein
2026-01-04 3:56 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-04 10:01 ` Amir Goldstein
2026-01-04 10:42 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-04 18:44 ` Amir Goldstein
2026-01-04 21:14 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-06 17:05 ` [PATCH v2] " Gao Xiang
2026-01-07 14:11 ` Dusty Mabe
2026-01-08 2:26 ` Sheng Yong
2026-01-08 2:32 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 3:10 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 8:02 ` Amir Goldstein
2026-01-08 8:05 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 8:24 ` Amir Goldstein
2026-01-08 8:34 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 10:26 ` David Laight
2026-01-08 12:30 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 2:38 ` [PATCH v3] " Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 3:07 ` [PATCH v3 RESEND] " Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 9:14 ` Sheng Yong
2026-01-08 9:25 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-08 9:30 ` Sheng Yong
2026-01-08 9:28 ` Zhiguo Niu
2026-01-08 9:31 ` Gao Xiang
2026-01-10 1:45 ` Chao Yu
2026-01-12 12:46 ` Christian Brauner
2026-01-07 14:32 ` [PATCH] " Alexander Larsson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251231204225.2752893-1-hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=alexl@redhat.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mszeredi@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®