Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 06:49:53AM +, Alex Elsayed wrote: > The main issue I see is that subvolumes as btrfs has them _do_ introduce > novel concerns - in particular, how should snapshots interact with keying > (and nonces)? None of the AEADs currently in the kernel are nonce-misuse >

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 07:27:58PM -0700, Liu Bo wrote: > Interesting, seems that we get errors from > > btrfs_finish_ordered_io > insert_reserved_file_extent > __btrfs_drop_extents > > And splitting an inline extent throws -95. Heh, you beat me to the draw. I was just coming to the same

Re: df -i shows 0 inodes 0 used 0 free on 4.4.0-36-generic Ubuntu 14 - Bug or not?

Good to know, and thank you for the quick reply. That helps. I'm running btrfs on root and one of the vm partitions, and zfs on the user folders and other vm partitions, largely because Ubuntu (and gentoo, redhat, etc.) has btrfs in the kernel, it's very well integrated with the kernel, and it's

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:25:00PM -0400, Sean Greenslade wrote: > Hi, all. I've been playing around with an old laptop of mine, and I > figured I'd use it as a learning / bugfinding opportunity. Its /home > partition was originally ext3. I have a full partition image of this > drive as a backup,

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:24:02AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-15 10:06, Anand Jain wrote: > >>How does this handle cloning of extents? Can extents be cloned across > >>subvolume boundaries when one of the subvolumes is encrypted? > > > > Yes only if both the subvol keys

Re: Filesystem will remount read-only

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > If -o recovery doesn't work, you'll need to use something newer, you > could use one of: > > Fedora Rawhide nightly with 4.8rc6 kernel and btrfs-progs 4.7.2. This > is a small netinstall image. dd to a USB stick,

Re: Filesystem will remount read-only

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Jeffrey Michels wrote: > Hello, > > I have a system that has been in production for a few years. The SAN the VM > was running on had a hardware failure about a month ago and now one of the > two btrfs filesystems will remount after boot

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:45:59PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Sean Greenslade > wrote: > > > In the mean time, is there any way to make the kernel more verbose about > > btrfs errors? It would be nice to see, for example, what was in

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote: > In the mean time, is there any way to make the kernel more verbose about > btrfs errors? It would be nice to see, for example, what was in the > transaction that failed, or at least what files / metadata it was >

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 02:23:44PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Not a mess, I think it's a good bug report. I think Qu and David know > more about the latest iteration of the convert code. If you can wait > until next week at least to see if they have questions that'd be best. > If you need to get

Re: Filesystem will remount read-only

Jeffrey Michels posted on Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:57:43 + as excerpted: > Hello, > > I have a system that has been in production for a few years. The SAN > the VM was running on had a hardware failure about a month ago and now > one of the two btrfs filesystems will remount after boot

stat(2) returning device ID not existing in mountinfo

Hi. I have spotted an issue with stat(2) call on files on btrfs. It is giving me dev_t st_dev number that does not correspond to any mounted filesystem in proc's mountinfo. A quick example: $ grep btrfs /proc/self/mountinfo  61 0 0:36 /root / rw,relatime shared:1 - btrfs /dev/bcache0

Re: Post ext3 conversion problems

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Sean Greenslade wrote: > Hi, all. I've been playing around with an old laptop of mine, and I > figured I'd use it as a learning / bugfinding opportunity. Its /home > partition was originally ext3. I have a full partition image of this >

Post ext3 conversion problems

Hi, all. I've been playing around with an old laptop of mine, and I figured I'd use it as a learning / bugfinding opportunity. Its /home partition was originally ext3. I have a full partition image of this drive as a backup, so I can do (and have done) potentially destructive things. The system

Filesystem will remount read-only

Hello, I have a system that has been in production for a few years. The SAN the VM was running on had a hardware failure about a month ago and now one of the two btrfs filesystems will remount after boot read-only. Here is the system information: uname -a Linux retain

Re: Thoughts on btrfs RAID-1 for cold storage/archive?

On 2016-09-16 09:22, E V wrote: Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard of dm-verity as of yet, I'll certainly look into it. How recent a kernel is needed, ie would 4.1 work? Also, for the restore workflow it's nice to be able to do it from just one of the 2 drives and verify the checksum from that

Re: Thoughts on btrfs RAID-1 for cold storage/archive?

Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard of dm-verity as of yet, I'll certainly look into it. How recent a kernel is needed, ie would 4.1 work? Also, for the restore workflow it's nice to be able to do it from just one of the 2 drives and verify the checksum from that file since the other drive will be

Re: Size of scrubbed Data

Thank you for the assistance Chris :-) On 15 September 2016 at 17:18, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Stefan Malte Schumacher >> wrote: ... >> I believe it may be a result of replacing my old installation of >>

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 17:23, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems. Ideally, we should be handling things like Windows does. Preform slightly better checking when reading data, and if

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-15 16:26, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Hugo Mills wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:02:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: 2. We're developing new features

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

however here below is the quick example on the cli usage. Please try out, let me know if I have missed something. Also would like to mention that a review from the security experts is due, which is important and I believe those review comments can be accommodated without major changes from

Re: Thoughts on btrfs RAID-1 for cold storage/archive?

On 2016-09-15 22:58, Duncan wrote: E V posted on Thu, 15 Sep 2016 11:48:13 -0400 as excerpted: I'm investigating using btrfs for archiving old data and offsite storage, essentially put 2 drives in btrfs RAID-1, copy the data to the filesystem and then unmount, remove a drive and take it to an

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On 09/16/2016 09:12 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:46PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. I have verified with fstests to confirm that there is no regression. A

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On 09/15/2016 07:47 PM, Alex Elsayed wrote: On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:33:48 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: Thanks for commenting. pls see inline below. On 09/15/2016 12:53 PM, Alex Elsayed wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:39:46 +0800, Anand Jain wrote: This patchset adds btrfs encryption support.

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

For the most part, I agree with you, especially about the strategy being backward - and file encryption being a viable more-easily-implementable direction. However, you are doing yourself a disservice to compare btrfs' features as a "re-implementation" of existing tools. The existing tools

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

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 > reservation. Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik > --- >

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:24:02AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > >> What happens when you try to > >> clone them in either case if it isn't supported? > > > > Gets -EOPNOTSUPP. > That actually makes more sense than what my first thought for a return > code was (-EINVAL). Should be

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:46PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: > This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. > > The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. > I have verified with fstests to confirm that there is no regression. > > A design write-up is coming next,

Re: Is stability a joke?

On Wed, Sep 14 2016, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Do you think the broader btrfs > community is interested in citations and curated links to discussions? I'm definitely interested. Something I would love to see is a list or description of the tests that a particular version of btrfs passes or

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:12:13 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:39:46PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote: >> >> This patchset adds btrfs encryption support. >> >> The main objective of this series is to have bugs fixed and stability. >> I have verified with fstests to confirm that