Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 07:50:07PM +, Alex Elsayed wrote: > > That would be true if the problem were not already long solved in btrfs. > > The 32-bit CRC tree stores 4 bytes per block separately and efficiently. > > With minor changes it can store a 32-byte HMAC for each block. > > I disagree

Re: multi-device btrfs with single data mode and disk failure

Le 15/09/2016 à 23:54, Chris Murphy a écrit : > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Alexandre Poux wrote: >> Le 15/09/2016 à 18:54, Chris Murphy a écrit : >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Alexandre Poux wrote: Thank you very much for your answers

Uzenetet!

Hello. Jo estet, es hogyan csinalod? Csak egy gyors, van egy hivatalos lehetoseget szeretnek beszelni veled negyszemkozt.   Orulnek a gyors valaszt itt az en szemelyes magan e-mail címet a tovabbi kommunikaciot. Udvozlettel, Mrs. Ko majus Leung e-mail: komayln...@gmail.com

Re: Is stability a joke?

On 09/19/2016 05:38 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:31:42PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> [...] A lot of stuff that may seem obvious to us after years of >> working with BTRFS isn't going to be to a newcomer, and it's a lot more >> likely that some random person will

spurious call trace during send

Hey. FYI: Just got this call trace during a send/receive (with -p) between two btrfs on 4.7.0. Neither btrfs-send nor -receive showed an error though and seem to have completed successfully (at least a diff of the changes implied that. Sep 19 20:24:38 heisenberg kernel: BTRFS info (device

Re: stability matrix

On 09/19/2016 04:36 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 16:07 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: That's in the blockdev command (blockdev --setro /dev/xxx). Well, I know that ;-) ... but I bet most end-user don't (just as most end-users assume mount -r is truly ro)... It's a

Re: Experimental btrfs encryption

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:15:18 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > (I'm not on linux-btrfs@, so please keep me on the cc list. Or perhpas > better yet, maybe we can move discussion to the linux-fsdevel@ > list.) I apologize if this doesn't keep you in the CC, as I'm posting via gmane. > Hi Anand, > >

Re: stability matrix

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 16:07 -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > That's in the blockdev command (blockdev --setro /dev/xxx). Well, I know that ;-) ... but I bet most end-user don't (just as most end-users assume mount -r is truly ro)... At least this is nowadays documented at the mount manpage... so in a

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix handling of -ENOENT from btrfs_uuid_iter_rem

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:49:41PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > On 09/19/2016 02:13 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:38:58AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > >> btrfs_uuid_iter_rem is able to return -ENOENT, however this condition > >> is not handled in btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:38:36PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>I'm not sure if the brfsck is really all that helpful to user as much > >>as it is for developers to better learn about the failure vectors of > >>the file system. > > > >ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:08:06 -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 06:37:16AM +, Alex Elsayed wrote: >> > Encryption in ext4 is a per-directory-tree affair. One starts by >> > setting an encryption policy (using an ioctl() call) for a given >> > directory, which must be empty

Re: stability matrix

On 09/19/2016 03:52 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 13:18 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: - even mounting a fs ro, may cause it to be changed This would go to the UseCases My same argument about the UUID issues applies here, just without the security aspect.

Re: stability matrix

On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 13:18 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > > - even mounting a fs ro, may cause it to be changed > > > > This would go to the UseCases > My same argument about the UUID issues applies here, just without > the  > security aspect. I personally could agree to have that

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:57:33 -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 07:13:45AM +, Alex Elsayed wrote: >> IMO, this is already a flawed framing - in particular, if encrypting at >> the extent level, one _should not_ be encrypting (or authenticating) >> individual pages. The

Re: stability matrix (was: Is stability a joke?)

+1 for all your changes with the following comments in addition... On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 17:27 +0200, David Sterba wrote: > That's more like a usecase, thats out of the scope of the tabular > overview. But we have an existing page UseCases that I'd like to > transform to a more structured and

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: handle quota reserve failure properly

On 9/15/16 2:57 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > btrfs/022 was spitting a warning for the case that we exceed the quota. If we > fail to make our quota reservation we need to clean up our data space > reservation. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik > --- > fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 07:13:45AM +, Alex Elsayed wrote: > IMO, this is already a flawed framing - in particular, if encrypting at > the extent level, one _should not_ be encrypting (or authenticating) > individual pages. The meaningful unit is the extent, and encrypting at > page

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix handling of -ENOENT from btrfs_uuid_iter_rem

On 09/19/2016 02:13 PM, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:38:58AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: btrfs_uuid_iter_rem is able to return -ENOENT, however this condition is not handled in btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate which can lead to calling btrfs_next_item with freed path argument,

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 14:27, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I used it (and still didn't last year when I tried to use it on an old disk). "Not working" here means "much less

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: >> ReiserFS had no working fsck for all of the 8 years I used it (and still >> didn't last year when I tried to use it on an old disk). "Not working" >> here means "much less data is readable from the filesystem

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 06:37:16AM +, Alex Elsayed wrote: > > Encryption in ext4 is a per-directory-tree affair. One starts by > > setting an encryption policy (using an ioctl() call) for a given > > directory, which must be empty at the time; that policy includes a > > master key used for all

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix handling of -ENOENT from btrfs_uuid_iter_rem

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:38:58AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > btrfs_uuid_iter_rem is able to return -ENOENT, however this condition > is not handled in btrfs_uuid_tree_iterate which can lead to calling > btrfs_next_item with freed path argument, leading to a null pointer > dereference. Fix it

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: handle quota reserve failure properly

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:02:22AM +, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:57:48 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > btrfs/022 was spitting a warning for the case that we exceed the quota. If > > we > > fail to make our quota reservation we need to clean up our data space > >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: kill BUG_ON in do_relocation

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:58:12PM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On 09/15/2016 03:01 PM, Liu Bo wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:19:04AM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:31:31PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > >>> On 09/14/2016 01:29 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: subvolume verbose delete flag

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 03:15:50PM -0400, Vincent Batts wrote: > There was already the logic for verbose output, but the flag parsing did > not include it. > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Batts Applied, thanks. I wonder where the original argument got lost. In the commit

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-19 00:08, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: Right, well I'm vaguely curious why ZFS, as different as it is, basically take the position that if the hardware went so batshit that they can't unwind it on a normal mount, then an fsck

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: change btrfs_csum_final result param type to u8

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:10:22AM +0100, Domagoj Tršan wrote: > csum member of struct btrfs_super_block has array type of u8. It makes sense > that function btrfs_csum_final should be also declared to accept u8 *. I > changed the declaration of method void btrfs_csum_final(u32 crc, char >

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: change btrfs_csum_final result param type to u8

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:10:34AM +0100, Domagoj Tršan wrote: > csum member of struct btrfs_super_block has array type of u8. It makes sense > that function btrfs_csum_final should be also declared to accept u8 *. I > changed the declaration of method void btrfs_csum_final(u32 crc, char >

Re: [PATCH]btrfs-progs: btrfs-convert.c : check source file system state

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 02:08:52PM +0200, Lakshmipathi.G wrote: > Signed-off-by: Lakshmipathi.G > --- > btrfs-convert.c | 15 +++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/btrfs-convert.c b/btrfs-convert.c > index c10dc17..27da9ce 100644 > ---

Re: stability matrix

On 2016-09-19 11:27, David Sterba wrote: Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:14:04AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: In general: - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for which kernel version the feature-status of each row was revised/updated the last time and

Re: [PATCH]btrfs-progs: Add fast,slow symlinks and fifo types to convert test

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:34:07AM +0200, Lakshmipathi.G wrote: > + slow_symlink) > + for num in $(seq 1 $DATASET_SIZE); do > + fname64=`date +%s | sha256sum | cut -f1 -d'-'` Do you need to generate the date and sha all the time? > +

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 01:31:42PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-12 12:51, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:54:40AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>> Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting point. > >>> I'm not sure we can fit

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 08:32:14AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-18 23:47, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >>4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS > >>is healthy. > > > >I've

Re: Experimental btrfs encryption

(I'm not on linux-btrfs@, so please keep me on the cc list. Or perhpas better yet, maybe we can move discussion to the linux-fsdevel@ list.) Hi Anand, After reading this thread on the web archives, and seeing that some folks seem to be a bit confused about "vfs level crypto", fs/crypto, and

Re: stability matrix (was: Is stability a joke?)

Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:14:04AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > In general: > - I think another column should be added, which tells when and for >   which kernel version the feature-status of each row was  >   revised/updated the last time and especially by whom. >   If a core dev

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:08:55AM -0400, Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > At the end of the day I'm not sure fsck really matters. If the filesystem > is getting corrupted enough that both copies of metadata are broken, > there's something fundamentally wrong with that setup (hardware bugs, > software

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:30:28PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > All chunks are completed convert to DUP, no small chunk, all to its maximum > chunk size. > So from chunk level, nothing related to convert yet. > > But for extent tree, I found several extents are heavily referred to. > Like extent

Re: stability matrix

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 07:54:26AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > > I'd like to help creating/maintaining this bug overview. A good start > > would be to just crawl through all stable kernels and some distro > > kernels and see which commits show up in fs/btrfs. > > > As of right now, we

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix incremental send failure caused by balance

From: Filipe Manana Commit 951555856b88 ("Btrfs: send, don't bug on inconsistent snapshots") removed some BUG_ON() statements (replacing them with returning errors to user space and logging error messages) when a snapshot is in an inconsistent state due to failures to update a

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 22:57, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 08:00:44AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: To be entirely honest, both zero-log and super-recover could probably be pretty easily integrated into btrfs check such that it detects when they need to be run and does so. zero-log

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-18 23:47, Zygo Blaxell wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:56:03PM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 4. File Range Cloning and Out-of-band Dedupe: Similarly, work fine if the FS is healthy. I've found issues with OOB dedup (clone/extent-same): 1. Don't dedup data that has not been

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On 2016-09-18 13:28, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Anand Jain wrote: (updated the subject, was [1]) IMO the hot-spare feature makes most sense with the raid56, Why. ? Raid56 is not scalable, has less redundancy in most all configurations,

Re: RAID1 availability issue[2], Hot-spare and auto-replace

On 2016-09-18 22:25, Anand Jain wrote: Chris Murphy, Thanks for writing in detail, it makes sense.. Generally hot spare is to reduce the risk of double disk failures leading to the data lose at the data centers before the data is reconstructed again for redundancy. On 09/19/2016 01:28

Transaksjon

Dato: 9/18/2016 Jeg er Sir Jonathan Stephen Cunliffe, visesentralbanksjef , Finansiell stabilitet, Bank of England. Jeg har et interessant tilbud som er verdt (£ 11.5 millioner) for å dele med deg. Hvis du er interessert, kan du skrive tilbake til min personlige e-post: jonl1...@aol.co.uk for