On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 9:05 AM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 11:12 PM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> 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.
