What's up with "locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced"?
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
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_structis displacedFrom 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/2941364Are 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]>
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