Skip to contentSkip to conversation

What's up with "locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced"?

DISCUSSION Theodore Y. Ts'o 2 participants 3 messages May 19, 2018 – May 20, 2018 VFS

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

There is quite of noise currently with xfstests failures. In addition to the fsync/EIO failures, there is also something going on with dm-thin, etc. And then there's generic/484, which is failing for all ext4 configs.

According to test script for generic/484, the test failure is fixed by the patch:

locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced

Quoted 1 line

From what I can tell, the patch was last submitted on March 17th, with

comments from Eric Beiderman on April 2nd and 3rd --- but nothing since then:

      https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/2941364

Are you still hoping to land this patch for 4.17?

Thanks, regards,

- Ted

#1 lore raw
Quoted 14 lines · Theodore Y. Ts'o

There is quite of noise currently with xfstests failures. In addition to the fsync/EIO failures, there is also something going on with dm-thin, etc. And then there's generic/484, which is failing for all ext4 configs.

According to test script for generic/484, the test failure is fixed by the patch:

locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced

From what I can tell, the patch was last submitted on March 17th, with comments from Eric Beiderman on April 2nd and 3rd --- but nothing since then:

Quoted 7 lines
      https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/2941364

Are you still hoping to land this patch for 4.17?

Thanks, regards,

- Ted

No, it's not suitable for inclusion. After I sent the above patch, I realized that it would break some important filesystems (like NFS).

Eric sounded like he had the best approach to fix it, but it's non- trivial and somewhat outside the bounds of the locking code. I haven't had time to attempt a patch for it so far.

Signature · 1 line
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
#2 lore raw
Quoted 7 lines · Jeff Layton

No, it's not suitable for inclusion. After I sent the above patch, I realized that it would break some important filesystems (like NFS).

Eric sounded like he had the best approach to fix it, but it's non- trivial and somewhat outside the bounds of the locking code. I haven't had time to attempt a patch for it so far.

Thanks, I'll suppress generic/484 for my ext4 testing for now.

- Ted