On Mar 13 2005, Matt Mackall wrote: > I've noticed a few problems with HFS+ support in recent kernels on > another user's machine running Ubuntu (Warty) running 2.6.8.1-3-powerpc.
I also saw some of the things that you reported with Debian proper (sarge). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to use my HFS+ formatted system with Linux for a while, I may do so, if necessary to fix the bugs. > I'm not in a position to extensively test or fix either of these problem > because of the fs tools situation so I'm just passing this on. I, OTOH, can test fixes on the next weekend, since I have a full backup scheduled for this week. > First, it reports inappropriate blocks to stat(2). It uses 4096 byte > blocks rather than 512 byte blocks which stat callers are expecting. > This seriously confuses du(1) (and me, for a bit). Looks like it may > be forgetting to set s_blocksize_bits. I had not noticed what are the size of the blocks that HFS+ seems to use, but indeed I saw both very confused du and ls outputs. I don't know what may be the cause. > Second, if an HFS+ filesystem mounted via Firewire or USB becomes > detached, the filesystem appears to continue working just fine. That's the only way that I am using a HFS+ fs (fia Firewire or USB), since the drive in question is in an enclosure. > I can find on the entire tree, despite memory pressure. I can even create > new files that continue to appear in directory listings! Writes to > such files succeed (they're async, of course) and the typical app is > none the wiser. It's only when apps attempt to read later that they > encounter problems. It turns out that various apps including scp > ignore IO errors on read and silently copy zero-filled files to the > destination. So I got this report as "why aren't the pictures I took > off my camera visible on my website?" I haven't seen this behaviour for lack of testing, but I will try to reproduce it with an HFS+ fs on a file mounted via loopback. > This is obviously a really nasty failure mode. At the very least, open > of new files should fail with -EIO. Preferably the fs should force a > read-only remount on IO errors. Given that the vast majority of HFS+ > filesystems Linux is likely to be used with are on hotpluggable media, > I think this FS should be marked EXPERIMENTAL until such integrity > problems are addressed. I agree. This is, indeed, very scary. Just another data point, Rogério. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogério Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/