On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:31:00PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> The same goes for quite a few other filesystems, actually - at least
> adfs, affs, bfs, hfs, hfsplus, hostfs, hpfs, minix, omfs, sysv, ufs
> and vboxsf are in the same boat, and I suspect that ecryptfs and ntfs
> might be too.
>
>
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 9:45 PM Joel Stanley wrote:
>
> overlayfs using jffs2 as the upper filesystem would fail in some cases
> since moving to v5.10. The test case used was to run 'touch' on a file
> that exists in the lower fs, causing the modification time to be
> updated. It returns EINVAL
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:31:00PM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:15:37AM +1030, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > > overlayfs using jffs2 as the upper filesystem would fail in some cases
> > > since moving to v5.10.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 06:17:15PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:15:37AM +1030, Joel Stanley wrote:
> > overlayfs using jffs2 as the upper filesystem would fail in some cases
> > since moving to v5.10. The test case used was to run 'touch' on a file
> > that exists
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:15:37AM +1030, Joel Stanley wrote:
> overlayfs using jffs2 as the upper filesystem would fail in some cases
> since moving to v5.10. The test case used was to run 'touch' on a file
> that exists in the lower fs, causing the modification time to be
> updated. It returns
overlayfs using jffs2 as the upper filesystem would fail in some cases
since moving to v5.10. The test case used was to run 'touch' on a file
that exists in the lower fs, causing the modification time to be
updated. It returns EINVAL when the bug is triggered.
A bisection showed this was
6 matches
Mail list logo
