Re: Observed unexpected behavior of BTRFS in d_instantiate

2011-04-28 Thread Chris Mason
Excerpts from Stephen Smalley's message of 2011-04-28 13:23:59 -0400: > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:13 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 10:03 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > > On 4/28/2011 6:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:15 -0700, Casey Schaufl

Re: Observed unexpected behavior of BTRFS in d_instantiate

2011-04-28 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 4/28/2011 10:27 AM, Chris Mason wrote: > Excerpts from Stephen Smalley's message of 2011-04-28 13:23:59 -0400: >> On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:13 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 10:03 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: On 4/28/2011 6:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Tue

Re: Observed unexpected behavior of BTRFS in d_instantiate

2011-04-28 Thread Stephen Smalley
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:13 -0400, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 10:03 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > On 4/28/2011 6:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:15 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > >> I have been tracking down an problem that we've been seeing >

Re: Observed unexpected behavior of BTRFS in d_instantiate

2011-04-28 Thread Stephen Smalley
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 10:03 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 4/28/2011 6:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:15 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > >> I have been tracking down an problem that we've been seeing > >> with Smack on top of btrfs and have narrowed it down to a chec

Re: Observed unexpected behavior of BTRFS in d_instantiate

2011-04-28 Thread Casey Schaufler
On 4/28/2011 6:30 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:15 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: >> I have been tracking down an problem that we've been seeing >> with Smack on top of btrfs and have narrowed it down to a check >> in smack_d_instantiate() that checks to see if the underlying

kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/inode.c:6403

2011-04-28 Thread Ruediger Meier
Hi, About 3 weeks ago I was testing btrfs with enabled compression and got this: [1376756.337203] [ cut here ] [1376756.337211] kernel BUG at /usr/src/packages/BUILD/kernel-desktop-2.6.37.1/linux-2.6.37/fs/btrfs/inode.c:6403! [1376756.337217] invalid opcode: [#1] PR

Re: Observed unexpected behavior of BTRFS in d_instantiate

2011-04-28 Thread Stephen Smalley
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:15 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote: > > I have been tracking down an problem that we've been seeing > with Smack on top of btrfs and have narrowed it down to a check > in smack_d_instantiate() that checks to see if the underlying > filesystem supports extended attributes by l

[PATCH] Btrfs: check return value of btrfs_inc_extent_ref()

2011-04-28 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
If return value of btrfs_inc_extent_ref() is not 0, BUG() is called. Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh --- fs/btrfs/tree-log.c |1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c index f997ec0..23fb42d 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c +++

[PATCH] Btrfs: return error to caller if read_one_inode() fails

2011-04-28 Thread Tsutomu Itoh
When read_one_inode() fails, error code is returned to caller instead of BUG_ON(). Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Itoh --- fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 24 ++-- 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c index f997ec0..1bce4fa