> > commit 764baba80168ad3adafb521d2ab483ccbc49e344 > > Author: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Sun Feb 4 15:35:09 2018 +0200 > > > > ovl: hash non-dir by lower inode for fsnotify > > > > INFO: inotify issue with non-dir non-upper files in overlayfs exists > > in LTS <= v4.14. > > INFO: LTP inotify08 test fails on * v4.14 and bellow * and should be skipped. > > > > And message was informative only (clearly didn't work). Either way, do > > you think it's worth informing existing LTS bugs, found by test > > tooling, here ? > > Why can't we fix those bugs in the stable kernel releases? Is it too > difficult to do so? For this inotify bug: Commits ovl: hash non-dir by lower inode for fsnotify ovl: hash non-indexed dir by upper inode for NFS export ovl: do not pass overlay dentry to ovl_get_inode() ovl: hash directory inodes for fsnotify ovl: no direct iteration for dir with origin xattr Revert "ovl: hash directory inodes for fsnotify" are needed AND all the logic for setting up "origin" variable in ovl_lookup, passed to ovl_lookup_index() after it got its prototype changed, would still be missing (and other refactoring changes, commits splitting functions and so on). So I assumed it was a no-go. There is also another bug: https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3303. Fanotify faces a srcu dead-lock when userland stops responding to events for this other case. Fix for that bug is a 35 patches patchset (including the fix, commit 9dd813c15b2c101, for the particular issue). Question is, should I document things of this nature on this list also ? Even if it is likely a no-go for the backports ? Just as information ? Should I just bring the attention to the backport need (all patches) and you decide ? Tks -Rafael
