[LTP] FAILED: patch "[PATCH] ovl: hash non-dir by lower inode for fsnotify" failed to apply to 4.14-stable tree

[Rafael David Tinoco]

> > commit 764baba80168ad3adafb521d2ab483ccbc49e344
> > Author: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
> > Date:   Sun Feb 4 15:35:09 2018 +0200
> >
> >     ovl: hash non-dir by lower inode for fsnotify
> >
> > INFO: inotify issue with non-dir non-upper files in overlayfs exists
> > in LTS <= v4.14.
> > INFO: LTP inotify08 test fails on * v4.14 and bellow * and should be skipped.
> >
> > And message was informative only (clearly didn't work). Either way, do
> > you think it's worth informing existing LTS bugs, found by test
> > tooling, here ?
>
> Why can't we fix those bugs in the stable kernel releases?  Is it too
> difficult to do so?

For this inotify bug:

Commits

 ovl: hash non-dir by lower inode for fsnotify
 ovl: hash non-indexed dir by upper inode for NFS export
 ovl: do not pass overlay dentry to ovl_get_inode()
 ovl: hash directory inodes for fsnotify
 ovl: no direct iteration for dir with origin xattr
 Revert "ovl: hash directory inodes for fsnotify"

are needed AND all the logic for setting up "origin" variable in
ovl_lookup, passed to ovl_lookup_index() after it got its prototype
changed, would still be missing (and other refactoring changes,
commits splitting functions and so on).

So I assumed it was a no-go.

There is also another bug:

https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3303.

Fanotify faces a srcu dead-lock when userland stops responding to
events for this other case. Fix for that bug is a 35 patches patchset
(including the fix,  commit 9dd813c15b2c101, for the particular
issue).

Question is, should I document things of this nature on this list also
? Even if it is likely a no-go for the backports ? Just as information
? Should I just bring the attention to the backport need (all patches)
and you decide ?

Tks
-Rafael