On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:33 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 12:26 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:55 AM Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> There's a bug in the overlayfs implementation starting from the very first >> >> merged version that may cause an Oops of various forms if a directory is created >> >> over a whiteout dentry, but the actual whiteout on the upper layer was removed >> >> to the directory creation. >> >> >> >> Reported by: kaixuxia <xiakaixu1987@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> > >> > Looks good. A bit of commentary could be useful... >> >> Okay. >> >> >> + >> >> +# unmount overlayfs >> >> +$UMOUNT_PROG $SCRATCH_MNT >> > >> > Umount of scratch is not needed at the end of the test. >> >> It's not strictly needed, but gives additional assurance that things >> hadn't gone bad (after the oops umount returns with EBUSY). >> > > But the test harness unmount the scratch mount anyway > and if you have fsck.overlay installed it also runs fsck.overay on the layers > after each test. > > The question is why do you need the umount command in the test itself? > Is the output/result different without the explicit umount command in the test? The output is different, because the umount command fails if the mkdir crashed. Thanks, Miklos
