On Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:40:41 -0500, Michael Welsh Duggan wrote:
> David Sterba <dste...@suse.cz> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 05:13:49PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>> If we change our default subvolume, btrfs receive will fail to find
>>> subvolume. To fix this problem, i have two ideas.
>>>
>>> 1.make btrfs snapshot ioctl support passing source subvolume's objectid
>>
>>> 2.when we want to using interval subvolume path, we mount it other place
>>> that use subvolume 5 as its default subvolume.
>>
>> 3. Tell the user to mount the toplevel subvol by himself and run receive
>> again
>
> Ugh. I hope that would be considered a short-term hack waiting for a
> better solution, perhaps requiring a kernel upgrade. From a user's
> perspective there is no reason this should be necessary, and requiring
> this would be extraordinarily surprising. "Why is btrfs unable to find
> my snapshot? It's right there!" Moreover, this used to work just fine
> in previous versions of btrfs-progs.
Though the snapshot is still in the fs, it is inaccessible because you mount
some subvolume as the root, and you can not find the path to the snapshot.
For example:
There are two subvolumes in the fs, and they are in the root directory of the
fs, just like
real root directory
|->subv0
|->subv1
Then if you mount the subv1 as the root directory, the real root directory of
the fs and subv0 will be shielded,
+-------------------+
|real root directory|
| |->subv0 |
+-------------------+
|->subv1
you can only access the files, directories, subvolumes... in the subv1. So the
tool
will report "can not find ...."
BTW, it is impossible that the previous version of btrfs-progs can work well in
this case.
>>> We'd better use the second approach because it won't bother kernel change.
>>
>> I don't think that the silent mount is the right way to fix it, that way
>> the btrfs tool tooks responsibility not to break anything. Like the
>> unhandled umount failure below. I think admins and power users do not
>> like to see some random tool mess with the system like this.
>>
>>> @@ -199,6 +200,10 @@ static int process_snapshot(const char *path,
>>> const u8 *uuid, u64 ctransid,
>>> char uuid_str[BTRFS_UUID_UNPARSED_SIZE];
>>> struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args_v2 args_v2;
>>> struct subvol_info *parent_subvol = NULL;
>>> + char *dev = NULL;
>>> + char tmp_name[15] = "btrfs-XXXXXX";
>>> + char tmp_dir[30] = "/tmp";
>>
>> Mounting valuable data under /tmp is dangerous, what if some /tmp
>> cleaner starts to remove old files. I've seen that happen in practice.
>
> Agreed. If you _were_ to continue to implement it like this, you should
> include code to respect the TMPDIR envvar at the very least.
Since the TMPDIR is not safe, I think the approach that David said is better.
Let's tell the users why we can not find the subvolume, and ask the users to
make the final decision.
Thanks
Miao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
