On 16/02/16 15:51, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Colin Ian King > <colin.k...@canonical.com> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101951 and also >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1532145 >> >> Commit 4bacc9c9234c7c8eec44f5ed4e960d9f96fa0f01 ("overlayfs: Make f_path >> always point to the overlay and f_inode to the underlay") resulted in an >> issue when using a combination of btrfs and overlayfs. This is >> noticeable when doing a fsync() on a file in a chroot with overlayfs on >> top of btrfs; we hit a kernel oops in btrfs_sync_file() on >> atomic_inc(&root->log_batch) because root is NULL. >> >> I've debugged this further and found that in btrfs_sync_file(): >> >> struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry); >> >> does not return the inode I expected when using the stacked overlay fs, >> where as: >> >> struct inode *inode = file_inode(file); >> >> does. > > See the discussion at > https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg48131.html > > You can get along with file_inode() in btrfs_sync_file(), but not > later the fsync code path where we traverse the hierarchy up using > dentries. > More details on that thread.
Ah, good. So was there any resolution on a way forward for a fix? > >> >> However, I'm not well at all well versed in btrfs, so I am not confident >> this is a actually correct. Any comments? >> >> Colin >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
