Hi,
I probably could try it. The problem is that I don't have extra computer at the
moment and I should do it on my main server. There is also a Virtualbox host
running there, which needs to compile some parts of it every time the host
kernel is updated. For that it needs kernel-headers. I assume that the fix
you're talking about wouldn't affect Virtualbox itself, but if the kernel
headers version differs from the "test" kernel, then Virtualbox won't start.
If you can make "test" kernel so it matches my headers:
ii linux-headers-6.1.0-20-amd64 6.1.85-1
amd64 Header files for Linux 6.1.0-20-amd64
ii linux-headers-6.1.0-20-common 6.1.85-1
all Common header files for Linux 6.1.0-20
ii linux-headers-amd64 6.1.85-1
amd64 Header files for Linux amd64 configuration (meta-package)
I think I could probably try it. Also instructions to revert back is necessary
😉
Regards,
Kari
________________________________
From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]> on behalf of
Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]>
Sent: 18 April 2024 09:39
To: Kari Lempiäinen <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Manfred Larcher
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Bug#1069102: linux-image-6.1.0-20-amd64 and cifs mount problem on
some folders which get hidden on shares
Hi Kari,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 05:31:33AM +0000, Kari Lempiäinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think I spoke too soon. I removed 'noserverino' options from all
> my cifs mounts yesterday and u/remounted them. From last night
> syslog I can still find the "directory entry name would overflow
> frame end of buf" entries.
>
> I have options like this in my fstab:
> //mercury/backups /mnt/backups cifs
> credentials=/etc/smbcredentials,uid=kari,gid=kari,_netdev,dir_mode=0775,file_mode=0775,noperm,vers=3.0
> 0 0    
Thanks for reporting back! So it might be possible that the
noserverino just makes the issue easier visible.
If I would provide you a (unsigned!) kernel-image package with a
tentative patch from upstream, asking for testing, could you boot one
affected machine into it to verify if the problem is solved?
Regards,
Salvatore
