On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 08:57:41PM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 09/15/2017 07:01 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> >> Conclusion: even if the file is corrupted and normally BTRFS prevent to
> >> access it, using O_DIRECT
> >> a) no error is returned to the caller
> >> b) instead of the page stored on
On 09/15/2017 07:01 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> Conclusion: even if the file is corrupted and normally BTRFS prevent to
>> access it, using O_DIRECT
>> a) no error is returned to the caller
>> b) instead of the page stored on the disk, it is returned a page filled with
>> 0x01 (according also with the f
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:00:19AM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I discovered two bugs when O_DIRECT is used...
>
> 1) a corrupted file doesn't return -EIO when O_DIRECT is used
>
> Normally BTRFS prevents to access the contents of a corrupted file; however I
> was able read t
On 09/15/2017 11:50 AM, Marat Khalili wrote:
> May I state my user's point of view:
>
> I know one applications that uses O_DIRECT, and it is subtly broken
> on BTRFS. I know no applications that use O_DIRECT and are not
> broken. (Really more statistics would help here, probably some exist
> that
On 09/15/2017 07:01 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 15.09.2017 08:50, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>> On 09/15/2017 05:55 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>> 15.09.2017 01:00, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
2) The second bug, is a more severe bug. If during a writing of a buffer
with O_DIRECT,
On 09/15/2017 10:26 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 08:04:35AM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
>> On 09/15/2017 12:18 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>>>As far as I know, both of these are basically known issues, with no
>>> good solution, other than not using O_DIRECT. Certainly the fi
15.09.2017 08:50, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
> On 09/15/2017 05:55 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>> 15.09.2017 01:00, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>>>
>>> 2) The second bug, is a more severe bug. If during a writing of a buffer
>>> with O_DIRECT, the buffer is updated at the same time by a second proc
> -Original Message-
> From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Marat Khalili
> Sent: Friday, 15 September 2017 7:50 PM
> To: Hugo Mills ; Goffredo Baroncelli
> ; linux-btrfs
> Subject: Re: BUG: BTRFS and O
May I state my user's point of view:
I know one applications that uses O_DIRECT, and it is subtly broken on
BTRFS. I know no applications that use O_DIRECT and are not broken.
(Really more statistics would help here, probably some exist that
provably work.) According to developers making O_DIR
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 08:04:35AM +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote:
> On 09/15/2017 12:18 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
> >As far as I know, both of these are basically known issues, with no
> > good solution, other than not using O_DIRECT. Certainly the first
> > issue is one I recognise. The second
On 09/15/2017 12:18 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
>As far as I know, both of these are basically known issues, with no
> good solution, other than not using O_DIRECT. Certainly the first
> issue is one I recognise. The second isn't one I recognise directly,
> but is unsurprising to me.
>
>There ha
On 09/15/2017 05:55 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 15.09.2017 01:00, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>>
>> 2) The second bug, is a more severe bug. If during a writing of a buffer
>> with O_DIRECT, the buffer is updated at the same time by a second process,
>> the checksum may be incorrect.
>>
>
> Is
15.09.2017 01:00, Goffredo Baroncelli пишет:
>
> 2) The second bug, is a more severe bug. If during a writing of a buffer with
> O_DIRECT, the buffer is updated at the same time by a second process, the
> checksum may be incorrect.
>
Is it btrfs specific? If buffer is updated before it was act
As far as I know, both of these are basically known issues, with no
good solution, other than not using O_DIRECT. Certainly the first
issue is one I recognise. The second isn't one I recognise directly,
but is unsurprising to me.
There have been discussions -- including developers -- on this
14 matches
Mail list logo