[CRIU] [NAK (new version sent)] Re: [PATCH] UBUNTU: SAUCE: overlayfs: use shiftfs hacks only with shiftfs as underlay

[Christian Brauner]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:08:53PM +0200, Kleber Souza wrote:
> On 23.04.20 11:52, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:02:28PM -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 4:19 AM Christian Brauner
> >> <christian.brauner at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 01:59:18AM -0700, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> >>>> The hack was introduced in ("UBUNTU: SAUCE: overlayfs: allow with
> >>>> shiftfs as underlay") and it broke checkpoint/restore of docker
> >>>> contains:
> >>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1857257
> >>>>
> >>>> The following script can be used to trigger the issue:
> >> ...
> >>>> Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner at ubuntu.com>
> >>>> Cc: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader at canonical.com>
> >>>> Cc: Connor Kuehl <connor.kuehl at canonical.com>
> >>>> Cc: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <kleber.souza at canonical.com>
> >>>> Fixes: 58009298c6bd ("UBUNTU: SAUCE: overlayfs: allow with shiftfs as underlay")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrei Vagin <avagin at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for looking into this. Seems ok to me.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner at ubuntu.com>
> >>
> >> Hi Christian,
> >>
> >> Do you know why this patch isn't in the mailing list archive?
> >> Do you know when we can expect to see this patch in the ubuntu kernel?
> > 
> > My ack showed up on the list at least. I think what's happening is that
> > your mail isn't whitelisted because you're not subscribed to the list.
> > Let me resend for you. I think that this should show up in the next SRU
> > cycle.
> > 
> > Christian
> > 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The Kernel SRU schedule is available at:
> 
> https://kernel.ubuntu.com/

I've sent a new version based on top of the two other patches I sent out
for the next SRU cycle and with the current BugLink style we're using.
Since all those patches need to go into all LTS releases they can now be
applied cleanly together.
So we can disregard this version.

Thanks!
Christian