Re: Crashes running btrfs scrub

On 03/18/2018 07:41 AM, Liu Bo wrote: > ((BTRFS_SYSTEM_CHUNK_ARRAY_SIZE / 2) - sizeof(struct btrfs_chunk)) / > sizeof(struct btrfs_stripe) + 1 BTRFS_SYSTEM_CHUNK_ARRAY_SIZE = 2048 sizeof(struct btrfs_chunk)) = 48 sizeof(struct btrfs_stripe) = 32 So (2048/2-48)/32+

Re: Crashes running btrfs scrub

On 03/18/2018 08:57 AM, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > BTRFS_SYSTEM_CHUNK_ARRAY_SIZE = 2048 > sizeof(struct btrfs_chunk)) = 48 > sizeof(struct btrfs_stripe) = 32 > > So > > (2048/2-48)/32+1 = 31 > > If my math is correct my math was wrong: sizeof(struct btrfs_chun

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()

On 2018-03-17 19:52, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >> >> Unfortunately my 4.4 test fails quickly: >> >> ./include/linux/jiffies.h: In function ‘jiffies_delta_to_clock_t’: >> ./include/linux/jiffies.h:444: error: first argument to >> ‘__builtin_choose_ex

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > On 2018-03-17 19:52, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> >> Ok, so it really looks like that same "__builtin_constant_p() doesn't >> return a constant". >> >> Which is really odd, but there you have it. > > Not really. We do rely on builtin_constant_

Re: Crashes running btrfs scrub

Liu Bo wrote: On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Liu Bo wrote: On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Mike Stevens wrote: Could you please paste the whole dmesg, it looks like it hit btrfs_abort_transaction(), which should give us more information about where goes wrong. The whole thing is here htt

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()

On 2018-03-18 22:33, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Rasmus Villemoes > wrote: >> On 2018-03-17 19:52, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> >>> Ok, so it really looks like that same "__builtin_constant_p() doesn't >>> return a constant". >>> >>> Which is really odd, but there you hav

Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] Remove false-positive VLAs when using max()

On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: > > OK, I missed where this was made about side effects of x and y We never made it explicit, since all we really cared about in the end is the constantness. But yes: > but I suppose the idea was to use > > no_side_effects(x) && no_side

Re: Crashes running btrfs scrub

On 2018年03月19日 06:52, waxhead wrote: > Liu Bo wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Liu Bo wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Mike Stevens >>> wrote: > Could you please paste the whole dmesg, it looks like it hit > btrfs_abort_transaction(), > which should give us more

Re: [PATCH 1/1] btrfs-progs: docs: annual typo, clarity, & grammar review & fixups

On 2018年03月16日 08:49, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Qu, > > So sorry for the incredibly delayed reply [it got lost in my drafts > folder], I sincerely appreciate the time you took to respond. There > is a lot in your responses that I suspect would benefit readers of the > btrfs wiki, so I've d

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/8] btrfs-progs: sub list: Add helper function which checks the permission for tree search ioctl

On 2018/03/17 22:23, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On 03/15/2018 09:13 AM, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: >> This is a preparetion work to allow normal user to call >> "subvolume list/show". >> >> Signed-off-by: Tomohiro Misono >> --- >> btrfs-list.c | 33 + >> btrfs-list.

Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/8] btrfs-progs: sub list: Allow normal user to call "subvolume list/show"

On 2018/03/17 22:23, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: > On 03/15/2018 09:15 AM, Misono, Tomohiro wrote: >> Allow normal user to call "subvolume list/show" by using 3 new >> unprivileged ioctls (BTRFS_IOC_GET_SUBVOL_INFO, >> BTRFS_IOC_GET_SUBVOL_ROOTREF and BTRFS_IOC_INO_LOOKUP_USER). >> >> Note that for