Re: btrfs check bug

An other Information needed ? Am 18. April 2017 21:34:33 MESZ schrieb Jan Koester : > >Hi, > >i have to try to create a new extent-tree after checksum error not >solveable with srub or init-csum-tree. >Now i got this failure output from btrfs --repair: >  >ERROR: errors

Re: [PATCH ping] btrfs: warn about RAID5/6 being experimental at mount time

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Adam Borowski posted on Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:07:45 +0200 as excerpted: > >> Too many people come complaining about losing their data -- and indeed, >> there's no warning outside a wiki and the mailing list tribal knowledge. >>

Re: [PATCH ping] btrfs: warn about RAID5/6 being experimental at mount time

Adam Borowski posted on Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:07:45 +0200 as excerpted: > Too many people come complaining about losing their data -- and indeed, > there's no warning outside a wiki and the mailing list tribal knowledge. > Message severity chosen for consistency with XFS -- "alert" makes dmesg >

Re: [PATCH v3] btrfs: fiemap: Cache and merge fiemap extent before submit it to user

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:09:39AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 04/20/2017 09:58 AM, Liu Bo wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 09:52:00AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > If I understand it correctly, what it's missing currently is 'merge', a > > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/5] v2: block subsystem refcounter conversions

Hi Elena, On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:10:16PM +, Reshetova, Elena wrote: > > > All the objections from DaveM on the amount of cycles spent on the > > new refcount_t apply to the block layer fast path operations as well. > > Ok, could you please indicate the correct way to measure the impact

Re: [PATCH 0/25 v3] fs: Convert all embedded bdis into separate ones

On Wed, Apr 12 2017, Jan Kara wrote: > Hello, > > this is the third revision of the patch series which converts all embedded > occurences of struct backing_dev_info to use standalone dynamically allocated > structures. This makes bdi handling unified across all bdi users and generally > removes

RE: [PATCH 0/5] v2: block subsystem refcounter conversions

> All the objections from DaveM on the amount of cycles spent on the > new refcount_t apply to the block layer fast path operations as well. Ok, could you please indicate the correct way to measure the impact for the block layer? We can do the measurements. Best Regards, Elena. > > Please

Re: [PATCH 5/8] nowait aio: return on congested block device

On Wed 19-04-17 10:21:39, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > > > On 04/19/2017 01:45 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > >> + if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_NOWAIT) { > >> + if (!blk_queue_nowait(q)) { > >> + err = -EOPNOTSUPP; > >> + goto end_io; > >> + } >

Re: [PATCH 0/5] v2: block subsystem refcounter conversions

All the objections from DaveM on the amount of cycles spent on the new refcount_t apply to the block layer fast path operations as well. Please don't send any more conversions until those have been resolved. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of

Re: Reporting and monitoring storage events (blog)

On 2017-04-19 13:39, Chris Murphy wrote: http://www-rhstorage.rhcloud.com/blog/vpodzime/reporting-and-monitoring-storage-events I think the most useful part of this would be standardized messaging. For the exact same defect state on disk (data corruption), I get two different formatted messages

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs-progs: dump-super: check array_size in print_sys_chunk_array

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:07:56PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote: > Without validation of array_size, the dump-super may lead to a bad > memory access. > > Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi 1-2 applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"

[PATCH 2/5] block: convert blk_queue_tag.refcnt from atomic_t to refcount_t

refcount_t type and corresponding API should be used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free situations. Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 0/5] v2: block subsystem refcounter conversions

changes in v2: Not needed WARNs are removed since refcount_t warns by itself. BUG_ONs are left as it is, since refcount_t doesn't bug by default. This series, for block subsystem, replaces atomic_t reference counters with the new refcount_t type and API (see include/linux/refcount.h). By doing

[PATCH 3/5] block: convert blkcg_gq.refcnt from atomic_t to refcount_t

refcount_t type and corresponding API should be used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free situations. Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 1/5] block: convert bio.__bi_cnt from atomic_t to refcount_t

refcount_t type and corresponding API should be used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free situations. Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 4/5] block: convert io_context.active_ref from atomic_t to refcount_t

refcount_t type and corresponding API should be used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free situations. Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova Signed-off-by:

[PATCH 5/5] block: convert bsg_device.ref_count from atomic_t to refcount_t

refcount_t type and corresponding API should be used instead of atomic_t when the variable is used as a reference counter. This allows to avoid accidental refcounter overflows that might lead to use-after-free situations. Signed-off-by: Elena Reshetova Signed-off-by:

[PATCH v2 2/2] btrfs-progs: print-tree: add validation to print_chunk

In print_chunk, validate the value of uuid_offset when read the dev_uuid of stripe. Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi --- cmds-inspect-dump-super.c | 1 + print-tree.c | 20 +++- 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

[PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs-progs: dump-super: check array_size in print_sys_chunk_array

Without validation of array_size, the dump-super may lead to a bad memory access. Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi --- v2: Accept David's advice, no longer use BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_SIZE instead of sizeof(*sb). --- cmds-inspect-dump-super.c | 11 +-- 1 file

Re: btrfs won't mount any more

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:45:09AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:15:02PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > > Ouch, this is generally harmless unless your disk lies about barriers. > > Btrfs absolutely depends on them, and tends to suffer catastrophic > > corruption if writes

Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: dump-super: check array_size in print_sys_chunk_array

On 2017年04月19日 23:41, David Sterba wrote: - buf = malloc(sizeof(*buf) + sizeof(*sb)); + buf = malloc(sizeof(*buf) + BTRFS_SUPER_INFO_SIZE); This seems to be unnecessary, the super block structure should contain entier sys_array. Alright, I will remove it. -- Thanks, Lu -- To