NACK: [SRU][Xenial][PATCH 0/2] LP#1728489: tar -x sometimes fails on overlayfs
kleber.souza at canonical.com
Wed Nov 15 10:43:55 UTC 2017
A v2 of this patchset has been sent to the mailing list.
On 10/30/17 07:56, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> [SRU Justification]
> A user is seeing failures from extracting tar archives on overlay
> filesystems on the 4.4 kernel in constrained environments. The error
> presents as:
> `tar: ./deps/0/bin: Directory renamed before its status could be extracted`
> Following this thread
> (https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-unionfs/msg00856.html), it appears
> that this occurs when entries in the kernel's inode cache are
> reclaimed, and subsequent lookups return new inode numbers.
> Further testing showed that when setting
> `/proc/sys/vm/vfs_cache_pressure` to 0 (don't allow the kernel to
> reclaim inode cache entries due to memory pressure) the error does not
> recur, supporting the hypothesis that cache entries are being
> evicted. However, this setting may lead to a kernel OOM so is not a
> reasonable workaround even temporarily.
> The error cannot be reproduced on a 4.13 kernel, due to the series at
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg110235.html. The
> particular relevant commit is
> b7a807dc2010334e62e0afd89d6f7a8913eb14ff, which needs a couple of
> For Zesty, backport the entire series.
> For Xenial, where a full backport is not feasible, backport the key
> commit and the short list of dependencies.
> # Testing this bug
> The testcase for this particular bug is simple - create an overlay
> filesystem with all layers on the same underlying file system, and
> then see if the inode of a directory is constant across dropping the
> mkdir -p /upper/upper /upper/work /lower
> mount -t overlay none /mnt -o lowerdir=/lower,upperdir=/upper/upper,workdir=/upper/work
> cd /mnt
> mkdir a
> stat a # observe inode number
> echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> stat a # compare inode number
> If the inode number is the same, the fix is successful.
> # Regression testing
> I have run the unionmount test suite from
> https://git.infradead.org/users/dhowells/unionmount-testsuite.git in
> overlay mode (./run --ov), and verified that it still passes.
> (The series cover letter mentions a fork of the test suite at
> https://github.com/amir73il/unionmount-testsuite/commits/overlayfs-devel. I
> have *not* attempted to get this running: it assumes a range of
> changes that are not present in our kernels.)
> [Regression Potential]
> As this changes overlayfs, there is potential for regression in the
> form of unexpected breakages to overlaysfs behaviour.
> I think this is adequately addressed by the regression testing.
> One option to reduce the regression potential on Zesty is to reduce
> the set of patches applied - rather than including the whole series we
> could include just the patches to solve this bug, which are much
> easier to inspect for correctness.
> Amir Goldstein (2):
> ovl: check if all layers are on the same fs
> ovl: persistent inode number for directories
> fs/overlayfs/dir.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.h | 1 +
> fs/overlayfs/super.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
More information about the kernel-team