coreutils: tests/tail-2/inotify-dir-recreate.sh fails on overlayfs

Recipients:(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)

Message-ID:A93F37F7-ADA3-48FF-A1D4-800842F706AB@carldong.me

Hi all,

I’m continuing my testing of the 1.3.0 branch, and I’ve found that coreutil's tests/tail-2/inotify-dir-recreate.sh fails on filesystems where tail detects that it cannot use inotify safely (probably arising out of this check: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/34a48bf0f0552aaed21a7dba4a5488946a978317/src/tail.c#L2486-L2491).Example for this: overlayfs used by docker/podman/etc.

A quick and easy fix for v1.3.0 may be to just disable tests/tail-2/inotify-dir-recreate.sh :-)

Cheers,

Carl Dong

contact@carldong.me

"I fight for the users"

Recipients:(address . 47935@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:C38D9CC8-735D-45F9-83FB-CB7F07F0ACFC@carldong.me

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 27 Apr 2021 09:53

control message for bug #47935

Recipients:(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87czug6u43.fsf@gnu.org

severity 47935 important

quit

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 3 Jun 2021 21:29

Re: bug#47935: coreutils: tests/tail-2/inotify-dir-recreate.sh fails on overlayfs

Recipients:(name . Carl Dong)(address . contact@carldong.me)(address . 47935@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:87y2bqu4qi.fsf@gnu.org

Hi Carl,

Carl Dong <contact@carldong.me> skribis:

Toggle quote (4 lines)

> I’m continuing my testing of the 1.3.0 branch, and I’ve found that coreutil's tests/tail-2/inotify-dir-recreate.sh fails on filesystems where tail detects that it cannot use inotify safely (probably arising out of this check: https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/34a48bf0f0552aaed21a7dba4a5488946a978317/src/tail.c#L2486-L2491).Example for this: overlayfs used by docker/podman/etc.

> The author of tail’s inotify support explains it here: https://github.com/containers/podman/issues/5493#issuecomment-598851397

[...]

Toggle quote (2 lines)

With people more on more interested in finally getting ‘core-updates’

merged, now’s a good time to look into this bug. :-)

In the bug report upstream, you hint at a possible fix. Could you

provide a patch for this?

Alternatively, if that turns out to be too tricky, can you think of a

workaround, such as skipping the offending code during tests?

Thanks,

Ludo’.