Hello,
I can't reproduce this problem, sure that something went wrong before.
Please forget it,
Thanks for your attention and for developing this tool,
Regards,
Jordi Pujol
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 11:35 AM Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:45 AM Jordi Pujol <jordipujolp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I allways work on a Live system that uses overlayfs, and also remaster
> > the pristine filesystem using overlayfs.
> > After upgrading kernel to version 6.12 have experienced several
> > filesystem problems, thus have compared the overlayfs code of previous
> > versions.
>
> Thank you for the report, but we can do very little with the information
> "experienced several filesystem problems"
> Can you elaborate?
>
> > By intuition, have found that these lines have been removed from
> > version 6.11. This difference is key:
> >
> > overlayfs-sync-upper.patch
> > --- linux-6.13.2/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> > +++ linux-6.11.11/fs/overlayfs/super.c
> > @@ -202,9 +202,15 @@
> > int ret;
> >
> > ret = ovl_sync_status(ofs);
> > -
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > + /*
> > + * We have to always set the err, because the return value isn't
> > + * checked in syncfs, and instead indirectly return an error via
> > + * the sb's writeback errseq, which VFS inspects after this call.
> > + */
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + errseq_set(&sb->s_wb_err, -EIO);
> > return -EIO;
> > + }
> >
> > if (!ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > In latest versions the filesystems work like a charm when applying
> > previous patch
>
> Please provide an objective comparison between the behavior of
> "filesystem problems" vs. "filesystem work like a charm".
>
> I am assuming that you are using the "volatile" overlayfs feature?
> otherwise, unless I am missing something, the removal of code
> above should not have had any effect.
>
> The removed code, would have propagate the s_wb_err state from
> the upper fs sb to overlayfs sb, but the only code that checks
> s_wb_err state is syncfs() should be returning -EIO in this case anyway,
> so I am not seeing where the change of behavior you are observing
> is coming from.
>
> Are you using a patched kernel or an out of tree filesystem
> underneath overlayfs?
>
> Thanks,
> Amir.
