On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:28:21PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > Omar, > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Omar Sandoval <osan...@osandov.com> wrote: > > From: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com> > > > > When you snapshot a subvolume containing a subvolume, you get a > > placeholder read-only directory where the subvolume would be. These > > directory inodes have ->i_ops set to btrfs_dir_ro_inode_operations. > > Previously, this didn't include the xattr operation callbacks. The > > conversion to xattr_handlers missed this case, leading to bogus attempts > > to set xattrs on these inodes. This manifested itself as failures when > > running delayed inodes. > > > > To fix this, clear the IOP_XATTR in ->i_opflags on these inodes. > > > > Fixes: 6c6ef9f26e59 ("xattr: Stop calling {get,set,remove}xattr inode > > operations") > > Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agrue...@redhat.com> > > Reported-by: Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> > > Signed-off-by: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com> > > --- > > Applies to v4.10-rc4. Chris, this fixes the issue for me, could you please > > test > > it out? Andreas, does this make sense? I'll try to cook up an xfstest for > > this. > > this change looks good. > > Are those directories really read-only though? They have the S_IWUSR > permission set, and an update_time iop.
Hm, so these inodes don't have an on-disk [mca]time, it's only in memory. ->update_time() just updates the in-memory time stamp, which is kind of weird. Not sure why these even have S_IWUSR; they don't have a ->create() iop either. 0555 really makes more sense here. I wonder if anyone would care if we made that change... > Also, the get_acl and set_acl iops seem dead: they were not called > before because the xattr iops were not defined in > btrfs_dir_ro_inode_operations, and they are not called now because > IOP_XATTR is cleared. Could you please check that as well? Yeah, those shouldn't be there, either. I'll get rid of them in v2. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:29:51PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Omar Sandoval <osan...@osandov.com> wrote: > > Forgot to cc stable, but 4.9 needs this. > > Huh, stable not CCed again? I was hoping Dave would add it when he applied it, but since I'm going to send out a v2, I'll just do it then. -- 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