On 2018/03/21 16:46, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 20.03.2018 22:06, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On 03/20/2018 07:45 AM, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
>>> Deletion of subvolume by non-privileged user is completely restricted
>>> by default because we can delete a subvolume even if it is not empty
>
We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
valid generation and checksum.
Although btrfs check could handle it and print error message like:
leaf parent key incorrect 60670574592
Kernel doesn't have
Hi all,
I read from a SNIA's slide that btrfs will support host managed SMR device
natively, and also saw it in "Features Currently in Development or Planned for
Future Implementation" on the wiki. Does anyone know any further information?
Like the schedule? Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this l
Hi all,
I read from a SNIA's slide that btrfs will support host managed SMR device
natively, and also saw it in "Features Currently in Development or Planned for
Future Implementation" on the wiki. Does anyone know any further information?
Like the schedule? Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this l
Liu Bo wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:50 AM, Menion wrote:
Hi all
I am trying to understand the status of RAID5/6 in BTRFS
I know that there are some discussion ongoing on the RFC patch
proposed by Liu bo
But it seems that everything stopped last summary. Also it mentioned
about a "separate d
On 03/22/2018 01:15 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
> On 2018-03-21 16:38, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On 03/21/2018 12:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
>>> I agree as well, with the addendum that I'd love to see a new ioctl that
>>> does proper permissions checks. While letting rmdir(2) work
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> Seems like it doesn't like void * arguments:
Yeah, that was discussed separately, I just didn't realize we had any
such users.
As David said, just adding a (long) cast to it should be fine, ie
#define __is_constant(a) \
(sizeof(in
Hi,
a friendly reminder of the timetable and what's expected at this phase.
4.15 - current
4.16 - upcoming, urgent regression fixes only
4.17 - development closed, pull request in prep, fixes or regressions only
4.18 - development open, until 4.17-rc5 (at least)
(https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/in
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 12:54:38PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 26.01.2018 01:56, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > From: Omar Sandoval
> >
> > btrfs_orphan_add() has had this case commented out since it was first
> > introduced in commit d68fc57b7e32 ("Btrfs: Metadata reservation for
> > orph
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 04:50:32PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月20日 14:47, Misono, Tomohiro wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono
>
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo
Added to next, thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a m
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 08:44:58AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 20.03.2018 21:25, je...@suse.com wrote:
> > From: Jeff Mahoney
> >
> > Any time the first block group of a new type is created, we add a new
> > kobject to sysfs to hold the attributes for that type. Kobject-internal
> >
From: Kees Cook
> Sent: 22 March 2018 15:01
...
> > /* Glory to Martin Uecker */
> > #define __is_constant(a) \
> > (sizeof(int) == sizeof(*(1 ? ((void*)((a) * 0l)) : (int*)1)))
...
> So, this time it's not a catastrophic failure with gcc 4.4. Instead it
> fails in 11 distinct places:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> No luck! :( gcc 4.4 refuses to play along. And, hilariously, not only
>> does it not change the complaint about __builtin_choose_expr(), it
>> also thinks that's a VLA now.
>
> Hmm. So
On 22.03.2018 16:26, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月22日 22:20, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22.03.2018 16:17, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018年03月22日 22:00, David Sterba wrote:
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:53:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b
On 2018年03月22日 22:20, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 22.03.2018 16:17, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年03月22日 22:00, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:53:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>> index 26484648d090..3866b
On 22.03.2018 16:17, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月22日 22:00, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:53:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> index 26484648d090..3866b8ab20f1 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> +++ b
On 2018年03月22日 22:00, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:53:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
index 26484648d090..3866b8ab20f1 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
@@ -738,7 +738,8 @@ static
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:20:11AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> Rebuild on missing device is as same as recover, after it's done, rbio
> has data which is consistent with on-disk data, so it can be cached to
> avoid further reads.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo
Added to next, thank
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:53:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> >> index 26484648d090..3866b8ab20f1 100644
> >> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
> >> @@ -738,7 +738,8 @@ static int add_missing_keys(struct btrfs_fs_info
>
On 2018年03月22日 21:39, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:40:22AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> On 22.03.2018 10:32, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> On 2018年03月22日 16:20, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
On 22.03.2018 09:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> In print-tree, we have a lot of parsers to conver
On 2018年03月22日 21:40, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:18:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
>> tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
>> valid generation and checksum.
>>
>> Althoug
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:18:41PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
> tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
> valid generation and checksum.
>
> Although btrfs check could handle it and print error mess
I continue asserting that all this code is unnecessary, just wipe every
sb between 0, dev_size and be done with it.
Yep. That's a nice clean up. We have tried to use libblkid a long time
back but there were some issues. So we used the open code.
As of now there is other bigger concern as
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:40:22AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> On 22.03.2018 10:32, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > On 2018年03月22日 16:20, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >> On 22.03.2018 09:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>> In print-tree, we have a lot of parsers to convert numeric flags to
> >>> human readable string.
On 22.03.2018 15:31, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:29:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年03月22日 21:18, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> Its function has been subsumed by "btrfs rescue zero-log". Remove its
>>> source file and adjust make/tests soruces accordingly.
>>
>> De
So the code per-se makes sense. However, have you came across such a
case in the real world or are you just fixing a theoretical (but real)
issue?
As discussed in the other thread, the SB csum check is coming to scan
context as well. Now the question I have is, what do we do if the csum
does
On 2018年03月22日 21:18, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Its function has been superseded by btrfs inspect-internal show-super.
> Furthermore the tools is currently not built by default. Just remove
> it.
Same missing sob tag.
> ---
> Makefile | 2 +-
> btrfs-show-super.c | 39 ---
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:29:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月22日 21:18, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > Its function has been subsumed by "btrfs rescue zero-log". Remove its
> > source file and adjust make/tests soruces accordingly.
>
> Despite of the lack of sob tag, it looks good.
>
On 2018年03月22日 21:18, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> Its function has been subsumed by "btrfs rescue zero-log". Remove its
> source file and adjust make/tests soruces accordingly.
Despite of the lack of sob tag, it looks good.
> ---
> Makefile | 4 +-
> btrfs-zero-log.c
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 08:12:31AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Applied, thanks. I had to fix the test, fallocate may fail, so a file of
> > given size is created directly.
>
> The fix looks good, and I learn a new trick.
>
> But I'm wondering how could it fail.
>
> Nowadays /tmp should be tmpfs
Its function has been superseded by btrfs inspect-internal tree-stats.
Just remove it.
---
Makefile | 2 +-
btrfs-calc-size.c | 39 ---
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 40 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 btrfs-calc-size.c
diff --git a/Makefile b/Make
Its function has been superseded by btrfs inspect-internal show-super.
Furthermore the tools is currently not built by default. Just remove
it.
---
Makefile | 2 +-
btrfs-show-super.c | 39 ---
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 40 deletions(-)
delete
Its function has been subsumed by "btrfs rescue zero-log". Remove its
source file and adjust make/tests soruces accordingly.
---
Makefile | 4 +-
btrfs-zero-log.c | 78 ---
tests/misc-tests.sh | 1
On 22.03.2018 15:01, Anand Jain wrote:
> During the mkfs.btrfs -b btrfs_prepare_device() zeros all
> the superblock bytenr locations only if the bytenr is below the
> blockcount. The problem with this is that if the BTRFS is recreated
> with a smaller size then we will leave the stale superblock
On 22.03.2018 15:01, Anand Jain wrote:
> During the btrfs dev scan make sure that other copies of superblock
> contain the same fsid as the primary SB. So that we bring to the
> users notice if the superblock has been overwritten.
>
> mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdc
> mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdb
> dd if=
So I misread the code in the beginning, so the actual btrfs SB are being
wiped out by the for loop which calls zer_dev_clamped. And in there all
superblocks between 0 - block_count are zeored. And block_count is
actual physical size of the device, right. And this value can further be
limited b
v2->v1:
progs: update change log
Adds kernel check if there is a mismatch in the FSID
between primary and copy SB
The kernel patch here checks if all the SB copies are of the
same fsid.
The btrfs-progs patch zeros SB if found beyond blockcount.
mkfs.btrfs -b
** CAVEAT **
On the systems wit
During the btrfs dev scan make sure that other copies of superblock
contain the same fsid as the primary SB. So that we bring to the
users notice if the superblock has been overwritten.
mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdc
mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdb
dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/sdc count=4K skip=64K seek=64K obs=1 i
During the mkfs.btrfs -b btrfs_prepare_device() zeros all
the superblock bytenr locations only if the bytenr is below the
blockcount. The problem with this is that if the BTRFS is recreated
with a smaller size then we will leave the stale superblock in the disk
which shall confuse the recovery. As
On 22.03.2018 14:14, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> Ok. Will update the change log.
>
>> A better place for this code is really inside btrfs_wipe_existing_sb.
>> Furthermore looking at libblkid it supports a way to wipe multiple
>> superblocks by way of: blkid_do_wipe. I.e
>> https://mirrors.edge.ke
On 2018年03月22日 20:12, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 19.03.2018 11:18, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
>> tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
>> valid generation and checksum.
>>
>> Although btrfs chec
On 2018-03-21 16:38, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
On 03/21/2018 12:47 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote:
I agree as well, with the addendum that I'd love to see a new ioctl that does
proper permissions checks. While letting rmdir(2) work for an empty subvolume
with the appropriate permissions woul
Ok. Will update the change log.
A better place for this code is really inside btrfs_wipe_existing_sb.
Furthermore looking at libblkid it supports a way to wipe multiple
superblocks by way of: blkid_do_wipe. I.e
https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux/v2.21/libblkid-docs/lib
On 19.03.2018 11:18, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> We have several reports about node pointer points to incorrect child
> tree blocks, which could have even wrong owner and level but still with
> valid generation and checksum.
>
> Although btrfs check could handle it and print error message like:
> leaf pa
On 2018-03-21 16:02, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On the note of maintenance specifically:
- Maintenance tools
- How to get the status of the RAID? (Querying kernel logs is IMO
rather a bad way for this)
This includes:
- Is the raid degraded or not?
Check for the 'degraded' f
This @first_key variable is introduced in f5c4c4f3b75b
("btrfsck: add code to rebuild extent records"), however it's not only
unused, but also used incorrectly.
It's calling btrfs_item_key_to_cpu() on an node extent buffer.
Anyway, just remove it.
Fixes: f5c4c4f3b75b ("btrfsck: add code to rebui
Shane Walton posted on Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:56:05 + as excerpted:
btrfs fi df /mnt2/pool_homes
>>> Data, RAID1: total=240.00GiB, used=239.78GiB
>>> System, RAID1: total=8.00MiB, used=64.00KiB
>>> Metadata, RAID1: total=8.00GiB, used=5.90GiB
>>> GlobalReserve, single: total=512.00MiB, used=
On 22.03.2018 10:32, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2018年03月22日 16:20, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22.03.2018 09:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> In print-tree, we have a lot of parsers to convert numeric flags to
>>> human readable string.
>>>
>>> For the buffer size we're using immediate numbers fo
On 2018年03月22日 16:20, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 22.03.2018 09:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> In print-tree, we have a lot of parsers to convert numeric flags to
>> human readable string.
>>
>> For the buffer size we're using immediate numbers for all their callers.
>> Change this to macro so it
On 22.03.2018 09:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Just like what we did for leaf, also add this output to make it easier
> to distinguish tree reloc tree blocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov
> ---
> print-tree.c | 8
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --
On 22.03.2018 09:37, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> In print-tree, we have a lot of parsers to convert numeric flags to
> human readable string.
>
> For the buffer size we're using immediate numbers for all their callers.
> Change this to macro so it will be much easier for us to expand the
> buffer size.
>
Matthew Hawn posted on Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:13:38 + as excerpted:
> This is almost definitely a bug in GRUB, but I wanted to get the btrfs
> mailing list opinion first.
>
> Symptoms:
> I have a btrfs raid1 /boot and root filesystem. Ever since I replaced a
> drive, when I run the grub utiliti
Just like what we did for leaf, also add this output to make it easier
to distinguish tree reloc tree blocks.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
print-tree.c | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/print-tree.c b/print-tree.c
index d5bb413019bb..a82cdc945247 100644
--- a/print-tree
In print-tree, we have a lot of parsers to convert numeric flags to
human readable string.
For the buffer size we're using immediate numbers for all their callers.
Change this to macro so it will be much easier for us to expand the
buffer size.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
print-tree.c | 29 +++
54 matches
Mail list logo
