Closing this bug with Won't fix as this kernel / release is no longer supported.
Please feel free to open a new bug report if you're still experiencing this on
a newer release (Bionic 18.04.3 / Disco 19.04)
Thanks!
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: Triaged => Won't Fix
** Changed in:
Good to know. If tail works around this by default is there any other
reason to keep the coreutils task open?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement
tail -f works because it checks the file every sleep-interval seconds (defaults
to 1 second).
tail -f -s 10 /var/log/syslog gives a burst of new lines every 10 seconds.
With this test I see 10-seconds bursts with linux 4.10.0 and 4.13.0
indicating this bug isn't fixed.
--
You received this bug
tail -f /var/log/syslog worked for me with 17.10 dev | kernel 4.12.
(Tested by turning network on and off).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement i
Nope, tail -f is still broken at least in 4.12.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly
To manage notifications about t
I've seen reports that this is fixed in 4.10?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly
To manage notifications about thi
According to some here: https://github.com/phusion/baseimage-
docker/issues/198 this issue with overlayfs is not allowing CROND to run
in a docker container. I would really appreciate some eyes on this
issue if that is the case.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of U
@Mike Mestnik: To be true, i have a record that shows that i'm not the
nicest and most patient living person in the world - but you should look
at the bigger picture. I've used aufs for ISOs long term - with the
latest development in debian aufs does more harm than good - so the
logical switch is t
@Alf Gaida Most ppl can't read, it's unfortunate. To communicate with
ppl one must repeat themselves like an advertiser a 100 times, no a 1000
times is not even enough. Computers read vary well and what's more is
if you adjust your phrasing slightly enough times eventually you'll get
total obedie
@Mike Mestnik: you can repeat yourself as often as you want to - this is
a bug and should be addressed soon. There is absolutely no need to argue
- there is a need for fixing faulty behaviour. Ok. might not be your
thing, because may be complicated. Writing nonsense is not, therefore
you prefer the
Notice the comment #30 above:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/882147/comments/30
Also note that there is some confusion about known behavior of released
kernels. I suggest that if a kernel is released and it's select() call
does not behave appropriately that every application
This is currently causing some problems for me -- I'm using grub2 to
boot a LiveISO with TORAM=Yes from a DiskOnModule to implement a
hardware appliance.
It's *REALLY* aggravating that tail -f /var/log/ does not work
as expected.
Could someone bring that overlayfs inotify kernel patch up to date
The attachment "overlayfs_inotify.patch" seems to be a patch. If it
isn't, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the
"patch" tag, and if you are a member of the ~ubuntu-reviewers,
unsubscribe the team.
[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by
~bria
linux kernel 3.11overlayfs.v19
** Patch removed: "overlayfs_inotify.patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/882147/+attachment/3802091/+files/overlayfs_inotify.patch
** Patch added: "overlayfs_inotify.patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/8821
This is a patch for overlayfs.v19
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
inotify support for overlayfs
** Patch added: "overlayfs_inotify.patch"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/882147/+attachment/3802091/+files/overlayfs_inotify.patch
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
** Description changed:
When using tail on the liveCD some updates are not reported. This seems
to be triggered by tail using inotify to identify modified files.
Overlayfs does not appear to be implementing inotify quite the way you
might hope reporting only against the underlying filesys
** Tags removed: running-unity
** Tags added: overlayfs
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly
To manage notifications
I don't see the logic in having tail depend on this know buggy kernel
feature, while avoiding dependencies on non-documented features of tail
on a liveCD.
...It makes more sense to me that we depend on a nominally useful
feature add instead of depending on code that always works and perhaps
luck.
It seems like ---disable-inotify was added for testing purposes only,
hence the "do not document". I think it would be a bad idea to make
liveCD scripts dependent on it. As a workaround for me running tail -f
command on a liveCD, that sounds fine.
--
You received this bug notification because y
That sounds like a a solution, knowing is half the battle.
A proper fix would be for the option to be enabled when needed, but the
above is enough to close this bug or at least lessen the importance.
The live CD can make use of this flag in all it's scripts, for example.
--
You received this bug
For everyone interested in a quick workaround to the "tail -f" issue,
one can use (quoting) «the deliberately undocumented ---disable-inotify
option that was introduced in coreutils-7.6». Yes, with three dashes.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=583198#20
** Bug watch added: Debian
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: coreutils (Ubuntu Precise)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Ti
** Also affects: coreutils (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: coreutils (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Adam Conrad (adconrad)
** Changed in: coreutils (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a mem
Is there any particular reason for not fixing both, ignoring a known
failure mode?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correct
We fix kernels in stable releases when they don't conform to the
documentation, not the other way around.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement ino
Would we allow an application into the archive/pool that fails to work
as it should? Regardless of "WHO" or "WHAT" we can't have applications
that don't work, excuses like "It's the kernel's fault." are meaningless
to users.
If there is a kernel that fails to provide an API as it's supposed to
an
By that logic if select() is broken in the kernel and does not properly
handle its arguments or give proper error codes, my program which
expects to get proper error codes from the syscall is broken because it
doesn't know how to handle something not working as documented? I'm not
sure I agree with
No, if a kernel is released with some behavior then applications must be
made to cope with that behavior(if only for the range or kernels release
with this feature).
Tail does not cope with the "features" facing a released kernel and this
is in it self a big, separate from that of the kernel havin
Excerpts from Mike Mestnik's message of 2013-01-06 16:06:49 UTC:
> Why bother with inotify: The is the huge problem with community driven
> software. Performance is always given the right of way, stability and
> usefulness are not universally considered important.
>
> If there is a *single situat
A simple solution for performance is for tail to scale it's polling.
Users won't care much if tail checks every 3 seconds on a file that
hasn't change in 30, plus there can be configuration options.
My suggestion is, that once after all this logic is a core component,
tail won't need inotify suppo
Why bother with inotify: The is the huge problem with community driven
software. Performance is always given the right of way, stability and
usefulness are not universally considered important.
If there is a *single situation where a feature doesn’t function then
every application that makes use
There was indication in the past of some work in progress patches:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=133043888730766&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=133043888330760&w=2
Andy, have you published them somewhere? Any amount of inotify support
in overlayfs, even with limitations, will greatly
Vary well.
Though there is still one thing that bothers me. If INotify is non-
existant because only partial support would be avalible, how do
applications like tail/upstart/ect work?
Rhetorical I hope, they have to work regardless. So that begs my
original question!
"Why bother with inotify."
Inotify is not defined to return "a subset of changes". It's defined to
return all changes. That's why this is a bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not
John,
You make an interesting point about returning with failure. Applications
should account for all modes of failure, even when success is reported.
As for the point of having inotify at all, this was addressed in my
first post I wrote on 2012-02-25.
My skepticism about reporting error if i
Mike, if inotify will not actually report all changes on an overlayfs
then inotify needs to report an error when someone tries to monitor
changes in an overlayfs. Pretty simple, eh?
I mean, you could actually fix it so that inotify DOES report all the
changes, but that would be harder than merely
So, I should open a bug regarding the use of inotify on other
filesystems including but not limited to overlayfs?
I understand the need to accurately track separate issues, but the
solution is the same.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subsc
Mike, I think you may be missing the point that the nature of the
overlayfs bug is such that nothing which wants to use inotify (and there
are several bits of software in the live CD that do nowadays, because
inotify is a *far superior API* to the alternatives) has any way of
knowing that it isn't
Depending on an advertised feature simply because it was advertised is
an error.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly
Colin,
This is the second time I've replied to this, so I'll be brief.
A filesystem can implement inotify most of the time, while still being
unable to implement it all of the time. A good example is a filesystem
where inotify is disabled, or unable to be implemented, when flock is in
use.
App
Mike, the problem is that overlayfs effectively pretends to have inotify
but it in fact never sends any notifications. tail *does* in fact test
that the inotify calls succeed and fall back to other methods if they
don't, but the exact manner of the failure here defeats its test.
--
You received
Just added bug 956827 as a duplicate. Lack of inotify breaks tail which
in turn breaks the installer's log window.
All the user will see during the install is:
[timestamp] Ubiquity 2.9.x
[timestamp] log-output -t ubiquity laptop-detect
Any other relevant information will only show up if the insta
Well, inotify is great and all. However features like this simply won't
always exist or always work properly. A good case in point is locking
over NFS.
Thus dpkg or the install scripts need a hook for every file that needs
inotify. This call back should be run after the inotify and it should
fi
Andy indicated on irc today, in #ubuntu-kernel, that he is planning on
starting a conversation with upstream about this.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does no
Andy, is there a chance this bug might be fixed this cycle? There's an
awful lot that depends on inotify nowadays, and it would be a shame to
have to revert to polling interfaces to work around this overlayfs bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, whi
Additionally, I want to be able to fix bug 901381 and having ubiquity
create proper apport-crash reports in /var/crash but unfortunately
update-notifier uses inotify so on the Live CD won't tell you that there
is a crash report for you to report.
--
You received this bug notification because you
I installed openssh-server after booting a precise live cd and then was
unable to start ssh because upstart uses inotify to scan for new
services.
I ended up having to manually run 'sudo initctl reload-configuration' to
be able to use 'sudo service ssh start'.
--
You received this bug notificati
Bumping up the priority on this, as it seems to be the root cause of
several problems.
stgraber wrote: Edubuntu would like bug 882147 to be released targeted
and its importance bumped. It's the ultimate cause of all these ltsp-
live bugs and the reason why I had to add a bunch of upstart and NM
h
corss-reference: coreutils bug 908354
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly
To manage notifications about this bug go
I got to this bug when I was asked to report an error by ubuntu, then it said
that this bug/error has already been reported and then opened me this page.
This is what I was doing:
To run a command as administrator (user "root"), use "sudo ".
See "man sudo_root" for details.
ubuntu@ubuntu:~$ sudo
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Medium
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Title:
overlayfs does not implement inotify interfaces correctly
To manage noti
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Andy Whitcroft (apw)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/882147
Titl
53 matches
Mail list logo
