On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 05:22:07PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:

quoted

quoted

Since Jeff's patch is minimal, I think that it should be the fix applied
first and proposed for stable (with adaptations for non-volatile overlay).

Does stable fix has to be same as mainline fix. IOW, I think atleast in
mainline we should first fix it the right way and then think how to fix
it for stable. If fixes taken in mainline are not realistic for stable,
can we push a different small fix just for stable?

We can do a lot of things.
But if we are able to create a series with minimal (and most critical) fixes
followed by other fixes, it would be easier for everyone involved.

I am not sure this is really critical. writeback error reporting for
overlayfs are broken since the beginning for regular mounts. There is no
notion of these errors being reported to user space. If that did not
create a major issue, then why suddenly volatile mounts make it
a critical issue.

To me we should fix the issue properly which is easy to maintain
down the line and then worry about doing a stable fix if need be.

quoted

IOW, because we have to push a fix in stable, should not determine
what should be problem solution for mainline, IMHO.

I find in this case there is a correlation between the simplest fix and the
most relevant fix for stable.

quoted

The porblem I have with Jeff's fix is that its only works for volatile
mounts. While I prefer a solution where syncfs() is fixed both for
volatile as well as non-volatile mount and then there is less confusion.

I proposed a variation on Jeff's patch that covers both cases.
Sargun is going to work on it.

What's the problem with my patches which fixes syncfs() error reporting
for overlayfs both for volatile and non-volatile mount?

Thanks
Vivek