From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C9FC433B4 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5F5461001 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 07:29:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229956AbhDKH3S (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Apr 2021 03:29:18 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:48206 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229804AbhDKH3S (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Apr 2021 03:29:18 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93631C061574 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 00:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id v26so10175197iox.11 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 00:29:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3TUOF8YskU7rDQUrNF+GTNqWMtnO/oRawZlC5+r6gl0=; b=tg5NaG993H5of47L+pVplizZIwOb5nMRxPHvsQ6vn0QEPUnp1BwWliP+lwIGg5n968 hAAbGhgSr0UPm7DrjRqh/YYhvOpTR6a8VBz2SWNwfaScxpuBwO1vz3K/l5gaQMgjrRJF aK1syvGoND0UlMRBsf94ALHAJ1y5cLh0k5idVEDT3CkiVI1Euj1Rl8PLpMvxO1JZF++x X9HrFbKG1tvuzQEfluMJRHg8d44X7y0XqTuyMzvlj2Ldd/6UsR1pxKG+aKCRC1hcDFEm QDklTDxk4bekPS9hV36toFSLNMm2P3ubHvYMu7Y63pUrnUvagHT4vOVjggtt1MoiWL9V f+/Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3TUOF8YskU7rDQUrNF+GTNqWMtnO/oRawZlC5+r6gl0=; b=I6zAjHfh3QB+1fRV+yywiaiFPBkLMJZEclroIQg+VhdRh+mIavc/PVm+BldB7FTs7F +hfcKuyX8BnFh9BuHmX1l4i8PtT3hP2oxlz9x6orqEvexvUHCSXHJp69fLsurZSzIeDO YTl3xpN6wjlChhC2K6S+7IJyCEpAN9H3kwkrYpPgjOslFtRTp5ZdZpOOLWfqARjfGggf NXCmfDZpP049AX0Mi6x0r7p6SPRlDxuFZ+7zK/q0qhJsmkCbZq20GyPCq5yzEx8IFFQV bMtiSK7FVIYwVUWqFFEFIjU0NLxFIIXJvy/81w69PSoPb7rBGRdrnvZTTVzHNJC/5UrE spKw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531pOyhWBsWPSnERmobzPh/naMx5E9FkG5cgc+VKP1tG0KJ/cwKh OxG3HODAGa5qXB5604zwj5HI28/tBakMo9llcCtu9FejD80= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwldJV3y9UhaqOuqqJ8vyDxp9xhUiLUyB/d+ErxYGezQ7Ikv6l4rDlg3buQWEvATaNLdY7ADWoOqZHp4nccRsA= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:7a42:: with SMTP id k2mr4282279iop.64.1618126141506; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 00:29:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Amir Goldstein Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 10:28:50 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: btrfs+overlayfs: upper fs does not support xattr, falling back to index=off and metacopy=off. To: Chris Murphy Cc: Miklos Szeredi , overlayfs Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:05 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:12 PM Amir Goldstein wrote: > > > Now I'm confused again. > > So am I, and in retrospect I've posted here prematurely. > > > > > Your reports starts by stating: > > "The primary problem is Bolt (Thunderbolt 3) tests that are > > experiencing a regression when run in a container using overlayfs," > > > > But you say that the problem exists with kernel 5.9. > > When you say "regression" above, what are you referring to? > > Overlayfs. Now that I've tested 5.9, I'm not so sure it's a kernel regression. > > > > > Did those tests pass in a previous Bolt version? > > Did those tests ever pass in a container using overlayfs? > > Yes and yes. > > > There is surely a bug in overlayfs, but it's hard to find it without > > minimal bisection info. I'll keep looking. > > > > If it's a regression with newer distro, please try to understand > > from distro/package managers, what has changed in the container > > setup and kernel config w.r.t a container using overlayfs. > > Exactly. The original report of the problem is Alpine linux, but I > can't reproduce it on Fedora except with podman using an Alpine image > base. As all the other suspects have fallen apart, what remains > untested for regressions is this. > I'm lost in the maze of distros and containers. Will wait for more info. In any case, I was able to reproduce the bug in ovl_dir_version_inc() I will post a fix soon. But I don't see how the test case you reported can be affected. The bug I reproduced requires an upper directory that used to be a merge dir and whose lower dir was removed while overlayfs was offline. Thanks, Amir.