/0x3a0 [btrfs]
btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups+0x1be/0x480 [btrfs]
btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
that it may result in COWing a l
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 04:36:34PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:34 PM David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 04:30:35PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM David Sterba wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:48:40PM +0100, Filipe
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:34 PM David Sterba wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 04:30:35PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM David Sterba wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:48:40PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > > > Ah ok makes sense. Well in that case l
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 04:30:35PM +, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM David Sterba wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:48:40PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > > Ah ok makes sense. Well in that case lets just make
> > > > btrfs_read_locked_inode()
> > > > take a
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:29 PM David Sterba wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:48:40PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > Ah ok makes sense. Well in that case lets just make
> > > btrfs_read_locked_inode()
> > > take a path, and allocate it in btrfs_iget, that'll remove the ugly
> > >
> > > if
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 01:48:40PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > Ah ok makes sense. Well in that case lets just make
> > btrfs_read_locked_inode()
> > take a path, and allocate it in btrfs_iget, that'll remove the ugly
> >
> > if (path != in_path)
>
> You mean the following on top of v4:
>
>
ree_extent+0x799/0x1010 [btrfs]
> > > > > btrfs_reserve_extent+0x9b/0x180 [btrfs]
> > > > > btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x1b3/0x4f0 [btrfs]
> > > > > __btrfs_cow_block+0x11d/0x500 [btrfs]
> > > > > btrfs_cow_block+0xdc/0x180 [btrfs]
> > > > > bt
btrfs_cow_block+0xdc/0x180 [btrfs]
> > > > btrfs_search_slot+0x3bd/0x9f0 [btrfs]
> > > > btrfs_lookup_inode+0x3a/0xc0 [btrfs]
> > > > ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x166/0x1d0
> > > > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> > > > cache_save_setup
s_cow_block+0x11d/0x500 [btrfs]
> > > btrfs_cow_block+0xdc/0x180 [btrfs]
> > > btrfs_search_slot+0x3bd/0x9f0 [btrfs]
> > > btrfs_lookup_inode+0x3a/0xc0 [btrfs]
> > > ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x166/0x1d0
> > > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> >
> > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> > cache_save_setup+0xe4/0x3a0 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups+0x1be/0x480 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
> >
> > At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item
t; At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
> cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
> that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
> need to find a free metadata extent and while loo
[btrfs]
btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
need to find a free
btrfs_cow_block+0xdc/0x180 [btrfs]
> > > > btrfs_search_slot+0x3bd/0x9f0 [btrfs]
> > > > btrfs_lookup_inode+0x3a/0xc0 [btrfs]
> > > > ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x166/0x1d0
> > > > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> > > > cache_save_setup
s_cow_block+0x11d/0x500 [btrfs]
> > > btrfs_cow_block+0xdc/0x180 [btrfs]
> > > btrfs_search_slot+0x3bd/0x9f0 [btrfs]
> > > btrfs_lookup_inode+0x3a/0xc0 [btrfs]
> > > ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x166/0x1d0
> > > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> >
> > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> > cache_save_setup+0xe4/0x3a0 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups+0x1be/0x480 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
> >
> > At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a bl
t; At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
> cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
> that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
> need to find a free metadata extent and while loo
[btrfs]
btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
need to find a free
> > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> > cache_save_setup+0xe4/0x3a0 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups+0x1be/0x480 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
> >
> > At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a bl
t; At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
> cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
> that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
> need to find a free metadata extent and while loo
> > btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> > cache_save_setup+0xe4/0x3a0 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups+0x1be/0x480 [btrfs]
> > btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
> >
> > At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a bl
[btrfs]
btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
need to find a free
t; At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
> cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
> that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
> need to find a free metadata extent and while loo
ookup_inode+0x3a/0xc0 [btrfs]
> ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x166/0x1d0
> btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> cache_save_setup+0xe4/0x3a0 [btrfs]
> btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups+0x1be/0x480 [btrfs]
> btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
>
> At cache_save_setup() we
ookup_inode+0x3a/0xc0 [btrfs]
> ? kmem_cache_alloc+0x166/0x1d0
> btrfs_update_inode_item+0x46/0x100 [btrfs]
> cache_save_setup+0xe4/0x3a0 [btrfs]
> btrfs_start_dirty_block_groups+0x1be/0x480 [btrfs]
> btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
>
> At cache_save_setup() we
[btrfs]
btrfs_commit_transaction+0xcb/0x8b0 [btrfs]
At cache_save_setup() we need to update the inode item of a block group's
cache which is located in the tree root (fs_info->tree_root), which means
that it may result in COWing a leaf from that tree. If that happens we
need to find a free
ption) happened.
>
> > Ignoring transid failure
>
> So this is btrfs-progs (btrfs check). Kernel doesn't ignore any transid
> failure AFAIK.
>
> > Couldn't map the block 2287467560960
> > No mapping for 2287467560960-2287467577344
> > Couldn't m
noring transid failure
So this is btrfs-progs (btrfs check). Kernel doesn't ignore any transid
failure AFAIK.
> Couldn't map the block 2287467560960
> No mapping for 2287467560960-2287467577344
> Couldn't map the block 2287467560960
> bytenr mismatch, want=2287
block 2287467560960
No mapping for 2287467560960-2287467577344
Couldn't map the block 2287467560960
bytenr mismatch, want=2287467560960, have=0
Couldn't read tree root
Label: 'SEED_MD2' uuid: 851e4474-d375-4a25-b202-949e51f05877
Total devices 1 FS bytes used 1.94TiB
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 04:40:16PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> For fuzzed image bko-156811-bad-parent-ref-qgroup-verify.raw, it cause
> qgroup to report -ENOMEM.
>
> But the fact is, such image is heavy damaged so there is not valid root
> item for extent tree.
>
> Normal extent tree key in root tr
For fuzzed image bko-156811-bad-parent-ref-qgroup-verify.raw, it cause
qgroup to report -ENOMEM.
But the fact is, such image is heavy damaged so there is not valid root
item for extent tree.
Normal extent tree key in root tree should be (EXTENT_TREE ROOT_ITEM 0),
while in that fuzzed image, we go
Together with a zeroed out
> tree root, this asks for a bug in partclone...)
>
> So: the tree root is zeroes, backup roots are zeroes too,
> btrfs-find-root only reports blocks of level 0 (needed is 1).
> Is there something that can be done? Maybe it is possible to
> reconstruct th
Hello,
So this is another case of "I lost my partition and do not have
backups". More precisely, _this_ is the backup and it turned out to be
damaged.
(The backup was made by partclone.btrfs. Together with a zeroed out
tree root, this asks for a bug in partclone...)
So: the tree root
bvolume root's
highest_objectid when loading the roots from disk.
Signed-off-by: Chandan Rajendra
---
Changelog:
v1->v2:
A newly created subvolume cannot have an ID beyond
BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID. Hence when loading tree root tree or any of
the subvolume trees, We now use an assert state
On Tuesday 05 Jan 2016 13:12:34 David Sterba wrote:
> Sorry for not answering that. As you're going to resend it, please
> use EOVERFLOW in the btrfs_init_fs_root. We should not hit the overflow
> error in the mount path.
Right. Now I understand that.
David, Replacing the following code snippet in
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 07:40:46PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 Oct 2015 11:25:03 David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:14:24PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > > + if (unlikely(root->highest_objectid >= BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID)) {
> > > + mutex_unlock(&r
On Sunday 03 Jan 2016 00:02:18 james harvey wrote:
> Bump.
>
> Pretty sure I just ran into this, outside of a testing scenario. See
> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/51796
>
> Looks like the patch was never committed.
>
Thanks for pointing this out. I will rebase & test
Bump.
Pretty sure I just ran into this, outside of a testing scenario. See
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/51796
Looks like the patch was never committed.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Chandan Rajendra
wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 Oct 2015 11:25:03 David Sterba wrote:
>
Introduce new function, setup_temp_tree_root(), to initialize temporary
tree root for make_btrfs_v2().
The new function will setup tree root at metadata chunk and ensure data
won't be written into metadata chunk.
Also, new make_btrfs_v2() will have a much better code structure tha
Introduce new function, setup_temp_tree_root(), to initialize temporary
tree root for make_btrfs_v2().
The new function will setup tree root at metadata chunk and ensure data
won't be written into metadata chunk.
Also, new make_btrfs_v2() will have a much better code structure tha
Introduce new function, setup_temp_tree_root(), to initialize temporary
tree root for make_btrfs_v2().
The new function will setup tree root at metadata chunk and ensure data
won't be written into metadata chunk.
Also, new make_btrfs_v2() will have a much better code structure tha
On Wednesday 07 Oct 2015 11:25:03 David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:14:24PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> > + if (unlikely(root->highest_objectid >= BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID)) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&root->objectid_mutex);
> > + ret = -ENOSPC;
>
> ENOSPC ... I
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:14:24PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
> + if (unlikely(root->highest_objectid >= BTRFS_LAST_FREE_OBJECTID)) {
> + mutex_unlock(&root->objectid_mutex);
> + ret = -ENOSPC;
ENOSPC ... I don't think it's right as this could be with a normal
enosp
The following call trace is seen when btrfs/031 test is executed in a loop,
[ 120.577208] WARNING: CPU: 3 PID: 6202 at
/home/chandan/repos/linux/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:558 create_subvol+0x3e6/0x729()
[ 120.581521] BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -2)
[ 120.585410] Modules linked in:
[ 120.587460]
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 08:34:50AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Yes, you were against the automatic use of backup root or especially
> iteration all metadata space to find the latest tree root.
>
> I'll try to add a new option like "--full-scan" to enable the automati
David Sterba wrote on 2015/07/27 17:04 +0200:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:45:12PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
Allow open_ctree to try its best to open tree root on damaged file system.
With this patch, open_ctree will follow the below priority to read tree
root, providing better chance to open
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 02:45:12PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Allow open_ctree to try its best to open tree root on damaged file system.
>
> With this patch, open_ctree will follow the below priority to read tree
> root, providing better chance to open damaged btrfs fs.
> 1) Using
New function reset_one_root_csum() will reset all csum in one root.
And reset_roots_csum() will reset all csum of all trees in tree root.
which provides the basis for later dangerous options.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
cmds-check.c | 176
New function reset_one_root_csum() will reset all csum in one root.
And reset_roots_csum() will reset all csum of all trees in tree root.
which provides the basis for later dangerous options.
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo
---
cmds-check.c | 157
Allow open_ctree to try its best to open tree root on damaged file system.
With this patch, open_ctree will follow the below priority to read tree
root, providing better chance to open damaged btrfs fs.
1) Using root bytenr in SB to read tree root
Normal routine if not specified to use backup
Allow open_ctree to try its best to open tree root on damaged file
system.
With this patch, open_ctree will follow the below procedure to read tree
root to provide a better chance to open damaged btrfs fs.
1) Using root bytenr in SB to read tree root
Normal routine if not specified to use backup
Tumbleweed (kernel 3.17.??). Now I'm
on openSUSE 13.2-RC1 rescue (kernel 3.16.3). I dumped (dd) the whole 250
GB SSD to some USB file and tried some btrfs tools on another copy per
loopback device. But everything failed with:
kernel: BTRFS: failed to read tree root on dm-2
See http://pastebi
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan cox.net> writes:
[..]
>
> Hope that helps! =:^)
>
Thanks a lot for that many hints!
Unfortunately, btrfs restore does not find the tree root and so it does not
find anything.
I will wait for Qu Wenruo to enhance chunk-recovering.
And in the meantime I wil
Am 28.10.14 um 02:40 schrieb Qu Wenruo:
Original Message
Subject: Re: btrfs unmountable: read block failed check_tree_block;
Couldn't read tree root
From: Qu Wenruo
To: Ansgar Hockmann-Stolle ,
Date: 2014年10月28日 09:05
Original Message
Subject: Re:
Original Message
Subject: Re: btrfs unmountable: read block failed check_tree_block;
Couldn't read tree root
From: Qu Wenruo
To: Ansgar Hockmann-Stolle ,
Date: 2014年10月28日 09:05
Original Message
Subject: Re: btrfs unmountable: read block f
Original Message
Subject: Re: btrfs unmountable: read block failed check_tree_block;
Couldn't read tree root
From: Ansgar Hockmann-Stolle
To:
Date: 2014年10月28日 07:03
Am 27.10.14 um 14:23 schrieb Ansgar Hockmann-Stolle:
Hi!
My btrfs system partition went readonly.
). I dumped (dd) the whole 250
> GB SSD to some USB file and tried some btrfs tools on another copy per
> loopback device. But everything failed with:
>
> kernel: BTRFS: failed to read tree root on dm-2
>
> See http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=dPnU6nzg.
>
> Any hints wher
file and tried some btrfs tools on another copy per
loopback device. But everything failed with:
kernel: BTRFS: failed to read tree root on dm-2
See http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=dPnU6nzg.
Any hints where to go from here?
After an offlist hint (thanks Tom!) I compiled the latest btrfs-progs
y per
loopback device. But everything failed with:
kernel: BTRFS: failed to read tree root on dm-2
See http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=dPnU6nzg.
Any hints where to go from here?
Ciao
Ansgar
--
Ansgar Hockmann-Stolle, Universität Osnabrück, Rechenzentrum
Albrechtstraße 28, 49076 Osna
If we change something while scanning fs-roots we need to redo our search so
that we get valid root items and have valid root cache. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik
---
cmds-check.c | 10 --
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-check.c b/cmds-check.c
ind
On 8/4/14, 1:51 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 01:42:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 8/4/14, 1:35 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
>&
On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 01:42:23PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 8/4/14, 1:35 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
> >> if there is no quota, which is fine, but
On 8/4/14, 1:35 PM, Zach Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
>> if there is no quota, which is fine, but the code was
>> ignoring every other error as well, which is not fine.
>
&
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 06:12:37PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
> if there is no quota, which is fine, but the code was
> ignoring every other error as well, which is not fine.
Kinda makes you want to write a test that would have ca
Reading the quota tree root may fail with ENOENT
if there is no quota, which is fine, but the code was
ignoring every other error as well, which is not fine.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |7 ++-
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs
commit roots won't update root item in tree root if it finds
updated root's bytenr is same as before.
However, this is not right for fsck, we need update tree root in
the following case:
1.overwrite previous root node.
2.reinit reloc data tree, this is because we skip pin relo data
t
From: Wang Shilong
To search tree root without transaction protection, we should neither search
commit
root nor skip locking here, fix it.
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong
---
fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
ubvolume ID.
.TP
+\fBinspect-internal rootid\fP \fI\fP
+For a given file or directory, return the containing tree root id. For a
+subvolume return it's own tree id.
+
+The result is undefined for the so-called empty subvolumes (identified by
inode number 2).
+.TP
+
\fBsend\fP [-v] [-p \fI\f
inode_tree_del() will move the tree root into the dead root list, and
then the tree will be destroyed by the cleaner. So if we remove the
delayed node which is cached in the inode after inode_tree_del(),
we may access a freed tree root. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie
---
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 2
y, but restore seems to work when I specify the previous
> tree-root. My problem is however that the btrfs is so large I have nowhere
> to temporarily put all the files. I am currently running kernel 3.5. Does
> mount have an option to manually tell it to use the tree root at block
> 14102
e? If I understand correctly a feature along the lines of "mount -o
> tree_root=14102764707840 /dev/ /path/" would solve my problem.
>
> The fs is unmountable because of a temporary loss of connection with an
> underlying disk controller, and I don't think the device has a
lem.
The fs is unmountable because of a temporary loss of connection with an
underlying disk controller, and I don't think the device has a lot of
errors besides not being able to find the latest tree root.
--
Best regards
Øystein Middelthun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the li
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Øystein Sættem Middelthun
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have a broken btrfs unable to mount because it is unable to find the tree
> root. Using find-root I find the following:
>
> Well block 14102764707840 seems great, but generation doesn't match,
>
Hi!
I have a broken btrfs unable to mount because it is unable to find the
tree root. Using find-root I find the following:
Well block 14102764707840 seems great, but generation doesn't match,
have=109268, want=109269
Because the filesystem was last in use with a pre 3.2-kernel I am u
Hi!
After a short loss of contact with an underlying disk controller my
btrfs partition is unmountable.
dmesg provides the following information:
[356850.853787] btrfs bad tree block start 0 14102771924992
[356850.853808] btrfs: failed to read tree root on dm-0
[356850.859218] btrfs
From: Anand Jain
Segmentation fault with the following trace when csum-tree is
deliberately corrupted using btrfs-corrupt-block
read block failed check_tree_block
Couldn't setup csum tree
checking extents
Check tree block failed, want=29376512, have=0
::
read block failed check_tree_block <
I'm having a 'failed to read tree root' message when trying to mount a
disk which was mounting fine earlier.
Is there any hope to get the data back?
Atila
Sep 1 14:15:33 gentoo-atila [940695.233191] Btrfs loaded
Sep 1 14:15:33 gentoo-atila [940695.244360] device fsid
5
76 matches
Mail list logo
