Comment 217 for bug 330824

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> We might have a break in this bug. For those people who can reliably
> reproduce the problem, are you using ecryptfs, possibly extensively?
> Roland Drier has reported a potential lockdep report that might explain
> why some of us have had extreme problems reproducing the problem; namely
> we might not be using ecryptfs. See:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/4/93
>
> If so, there is a sample patch which **might*** fix this problem. See:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/5/79
>
> Also, if people could try building their kernel with
> CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING, that would be interesting to see if we get a
> lockdep report.
>
> If so, it might be that this bug has been around all along, but it's
> something about Ubuntu patches that makes it 100,000 times more likely
> to trigger. (In practice, it looks like it should only trigger on a
> truncate to a size which is not a multiple of the filesystem blocksize,
> not on an unlink --- but maybe there was a bug in the Ubuntu backports
> that made this possible to trigger on an unlink. This is only a theory,
> but it's the first lockdep report I've gotten that could at least
> potentially be related to this problem that to date, only Ubuntu users
> have been complaining about, even though at this point we've got a huge
> number of Fedora 11 users using ext4 w/o any problems.)
>
>
I've been using Ecryptfs only on ~/Private.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJKUXBIAAoJEIltSrFpUGteit8IAI1XZ0Co/2bSnErSa5qid68J
VEey/fPv8RRxvWd0QvZBRR9c9K+isjAS24+2A3V+veOh1aBd/C9dGOZ8fD4i5ZqZ
1i9f70ZPQnKxc9o1ER+qZ7X0EGiDXOVjFoHlV5GY8/OaaZ6/0R9ILOp2X+LvrY3s
ZZgFDjdKMO4058nI11y/Z00fuLwOlk8i2wr4a0ofkRCEkMWCfOtYOD270unEcJNx
CIi88ma0IwMelkjdoN+IqPqOSUbhAW/qCSJOBY5uuYlMXtdeXFFC/gMLdb5q34lk
vXbbb38744g4THJC03g2qIuDMPAw+QGl3+kMX+DIVs+oP83Je25kHIGiW2oj1v8=
=HMof
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----