* What's up with "locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced"?
@ 2018-05-19 19:47 Theodore Y. Ts'o
2018-05-19 23:51 ` Jeff Layton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2018-05-19 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Layton; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, fstests, ebiederm
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:
https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/2941364
Are you still hoping to land this patch for 4.17?
Thanks, regards,
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: What's up with "locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced"?
2018-05-19 19:47 What's up with "locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced"? Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2018-05-19 23:51 ` Jeff Layton
2018-05-20 1:13 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Layton @ 2018-05-19 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Theodore Y. Ts'o; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, fstests, ebiederm
On Sat, 2018-05-19 at 15:47 -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> 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:
>
> 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.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: What's up with "locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced"?
2018-05-19 23:51 ` Jeff Layton
@ 2018-05-20 1:13 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2018-05-20 1:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Layton; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, fstests, ebiederm
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 07:51:15PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-20 1:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-05-19 19:47 What's up with "locks: change POSIX lock ownership on execve when files_struct is displaced"? Theodore Y. Ts'o
2018-05-19 23:51 ` Jeff Layton
2018-05-20 1:13 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox