Bezüglich Mark Johnston's Nachricht vom 09.08.2016 08:02 (localtime): … >> >> Just for anybody else needing unionfs: >> https://people.freebsd.org/~attilio/unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch >> >> This patch still applies and I'm successfully using this (unmodified) up >> to FreeBSD-10.3 and never had any panic in all these years. > > Having spent some time looking at unionfs, I'm a bit skeptical that this > patch will address the panic you reported earlier, though I'd be > interested to know if it does.
Thanks for your attention. I can confirm that it has prevented panics for more than 4 years (9.0-10.3) and it seems to be still "good enough" to also prevent panics in 11-BETA4. I updated my build host (stable/11, this time with the unionfs_missing_insmntque_lock.patch), where the recent panics happened and unionfs gets much more utilized than usually in my setups: No panic with that patch anymore. Just one message like "prevented resource deadlock" occured. > Reading the code, I think it will just > address an INVARIANTS-only assertion in insmntque1(). > > Unfortunately, unionfs is quite difficult to fix within the current > constraints of FreeBSD's VFS. unionfs_readdir() is a particularly good > demonstration of this fact: some callers of VOP_READDIR expect the > cookies returned by the FS to be monotonically increasing, but unionfs > has no straightforward way to make this guarantee. I'm sorry, I can't provide help here. My skills would require a huge ammount of lerning-time to get into that matter. I'd love to do that, but I can't afford :-( Thanks, -Harry _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
