Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

在 2015年10月21日 22:15, Anand Jain 写道: Thanks for the comments.. more below. On 10/21/2015 05:12 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: Anand Jain wrote on 2015/10/21 16:45 +0800: mkfs from latest btrfs-progs will enable latest default features, and if the kernel is down-rev and does not support a latest

Re: [PATCH v2] btrfs: cleanup btrfs_balance profile validity checks

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 08:02:25PM +, Alexandru Moise wrote: > Improve readability by generalizing the profile validity checks. > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Moise <00moses.alexande...@gmail.com> Reviewed-by: David Sterba -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line

[PATCH] btrfs-progs: fix missing init dev list head for dev_list

--- utils.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/utils.c b/utils.c index f1e3248..b754686 100644 --- a/utils.c +++ b/utils.c @@ -763,6 +763,7 @@ int btrfs_add_to_fsid(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, if (!device->name) goto err_nomem; +

BTRFS BUG at insert_inline_extent_backref+0xe3/0xf0 while rebalancing

Hello, Recently I added daily rebalancing to my cron.d (after finding myself in the no-space-situation), and not long after that, I found my PC had crashed over night. Having no sign in the logs anywhere (not even over network even though there should be) I had nothing to go on, but this night it

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

Anand Jain wrote on 2015/10/22 11:09 +0800: Hi, more details about this RFC as below.. So a user with old kernel won't be able to create a filesystem with newer feature forever. Thats not true. Here below is an example of the problem and fix in action. Maybe the user are just

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: > And I realize of course right after sending this that my other reply didn't > get through because GMail refuses to send mail in plain text, no matter how > hard I beat it over the head... In the web browser

[PULL] Btrfs cleanups for 4.4 (collected)

Hi, a bunch of cleanup patches from the mailinglist, no functional changes. Reviewed and compile-tested, merge with current integration is without conflits. Please pull, thanks. The following changes since commit

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

I went through all the recovery options I could find (starting from read-only to "extraordinarily dangerous"). Nothing seemed to work. A Windows based proprietary recovery software (ReclaiMe) could scratch the surface but only that (it showed me the whole original folder structure after a few

Re: How to remove missing device on RAID1?

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Dmitry Katsubo wrote: > On 2015-10-21 00:40, Henk Slager wrote: >> I had a similar issue some time ago, around the time kernel 4.1.6 was >> just there. >> In case you don't want to wait for new disk or decide to just run the >>

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

If it is for mostly archival storage, I would suggest you take a look at snapraid. On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Janos Toth F. wrote: > I went through all the recovery options I could find (starting from > read-only to "extraordinarily dangerous"). Nothing seemed to

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

Thanks for the comments.. more below. On 10/21/2015 05:12 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: Anand Jain wrote on 2015/10/21 16:45 +0800: mkfs from latest btrfs-progs will enable latest default features, and if the kernel is down-rev and does not support a latest default feature then mount fails, as

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: introduce framework to check kernel supported features

On 10/21/15 4:09 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> +static int get_kernel_code() >> +{ >> +int ret; >> +struct utsname utsbuf; >> +char *version; >> + >> +ret = uname(); >> +if (ret) >> +return -ret; >> + >> +version = strtok(utsbuf.release, "-"); >> + >> +return

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

Maybe hold off erasing the drives a little in case someone wants to collect some extra data for diagnosing how/why the filesystem got into this unrecoverable state. A single device having issues should not cause the whole filesystem to become unrecoverable. On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Janos

Re: Lockup in BTRFS_IOC_CLONE/Kernel 4.2.0-rc5

On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Liu Bo wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 10:28:05AM +0200, Elias Probst wrote: >> I can reproduce a hard btrfs lockup (process issuing the ioctl() is in >> D-state, same goes for btrfs-transacti process) on Kernel 4.2.0-rc5. >> >> I had

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

I am afraid the filesystem right now is really damaged regardless of it's state upon the unexpected cable failure because I tried some dangerous options after read-only restore/recovery methods all failed (including zero-log, followed by init-csum-tree and even chunk-recovery -> all of them just

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-21 12:01, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: And I realize of course right after sending this that my other reply didn't get through because GMail refuses to send mail in plain text, no matter how hard I beat it over

Re: How to remove missing device on RAID1?

Hi Henk, This trick/hack worked great for me. After the rebalance was complete, a sparse file + loop device, `btrfs replace` and `btrfs delete` worked as expected. Thanks. In other news, I did hit a btrfs bug 3 times while attempting to balance. I've added my comments @

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Restore This should still be possible with even a degraded/unmounted raid5. It is a bit tedious to figure out how to use it but if you've got some things you want off the volume, it's not so difficult to prevent trying it. Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe

btrfs-balance causes system-freeze on full disk

Hi there! Is it possible, what i've recognized now. My system (debian) runs on btrfs, and i have a lot of snapshots on my hard-disk. Since some days my system freezes totally. I recognized, it always happens during btrfs-balance. So i deleted some of the old snapshots and tried another

re: btrfs: check unsupported filters in balance arguments

Hello David Sterba, The patch 8eb934591f8b: "btrfs: check unsupported filters in balance arguments" from Oct 12, 2015, leads to the following static checker warning: fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4673 btrfs_ioctl_balance() warn: possible memory leak of 'bctl' fs/btrfs/ioctl.c 4624

Re: btrfs-balance causes system-freeze on full disk

Thx! It seems to be the same bug. Am 2015-10-21 um 22:51 schrieb Kyle Manna: > I had a number of similar btrfs balance crashes in the past few days, > but the disk wasn't full. You should try tailing the system logs from > a remote machine when it happens. You'll likely see some bug info >

Re: btrfs-balance causes system-freeze on full disk

I had a number of similar btrfs balance crashes in the past few days, but the disk wasn't full. You should try tailing the system logs from a remote machine when it happens. You'll likely see some bug info before the system dies and becomes unusable. The issue I encountered is described @

Re: btrfs: check unsupported filters in balance arguments

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:55:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Hello David Sterba, > > The patch 8eb934591f8b: "btrfs: check unsupported filters in balance > arguments" from Oct 12, 2015, leads to the following static checker > warning: > > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4673 btrfs_ioctl_balance() >

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: Improve FL_KEEP_SIZE handling in fallocate.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Davide Italiano wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:08 AM, David Sterba wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 10:09:15PM -0700, Davide Italiano wrote: >>> - We call inode_size_ok() only if FL_KEEP_SIZE isn't specified. >>> - As

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

I tried several things, including the degraded mount option. One example: # mount /dev/sdb /data -o ro,degraded,nodatasum,notreelog mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sdb, missing codepage or helper program, or other error In some cases useful info is found in

[PATCH v3 RESENT 1/2] btrfs: Add support to do stack item key operation

Normal btrfs_item_key_to_cpu() will need extent buffer to do it, and there is not stack version to handle in memory leaf. Add btrfs_stack_item_key_to_cpu() function for such operation, which will provide the basis for later qgroup fix. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- v2:

[PATCH v3 RESENT 2/2] btrfs: qgroup: Don't copy extent buffer to do qgroup rescan

Ancient qgroup code call memcpy() on a extent buffer and use it for leaf iteration. As extent buffer contains lock, pointers to pages, it's never sane to do such copy. The following bug may be caused by this insane operation: [92098.841309] general protection fault: [#1] SMP [92098.841338]

Re: btrfs: check unsupported filters in balance arguments

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 12:52:37AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:55:00PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > Hello David Sterba, > > > > The patch 8eb934591f8b: "btrfs: check unsupported filters in balance > > arguments" from Oct 12, 2015, leads to the following static

Re: Btrfs/RAID5 became unmountable after SATA cable fault

I tried that after every possible combinations of RO mount failed. I used it in the past for an USB attached drive where an USB-SATA adapter had some issues (I plugged it into a standard USB2 port even though it expected USB3 power current, so a high-current or several standard USB2 ports

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: introduce framework to check kernel supported features

On 10/21/2015 10:41 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 10/21/15 4:09 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: +static int get_kernel_code() +{ +int ret; +struct utsname utsbuf; +char *version; + +ret = uname(); +if (ret) +return -ret; + +version = strtok(utsbuf.release, "-"); + +

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: add a check of whether fs_info->fs_root is NULL in btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space()

On 2015/10/21 20:27, David Sterba wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:20:00PM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: Kernel panic occurred due to NULL pointer reference in can_overcommit(). Because btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space() passed NULL pointer to btrfs_calc_reclaim_metadata_size().

overflow in inode.c, file.c

Hello, while using linux-⁠4.2.3 (btrfs-⁠progs v4.2.2) with the latest grsec patch to date, a feature in the grsec patchset, an overflow checker (made by emese) seems to have found some bugs in the btrfs code itself (this is not caused by grsec). First bug: fs/⁠btrfs/⁠inode.c:5759 For example

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

Hi, more details about this RFC as below.. So a user with old kernel won't be able to create a filesystem with newer feature forever. Thats not true. Here below is an example of the problem and fix in action. Maybe the user are just making btrfs for his or her newer kernel? Yes.

Re: btrfs-balance causes system-freeze on full disk

Kyle Manna posted on Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:51:22 -0700 as excerpted: > The issue I encountered is described @ > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 FWIW... I won't try to deal with the issue reported there, but I can help clear something up that's mentioned on the bug[1]. The

[PATCH 1/1] btrfs-progs: fix uninitialized copy of btrfs_fs_devices list

Noticed that at print_one_uuid() some of the members of btrfs_fs_devices contained some junk values. It took a while to dig this further, and found that we make a local copy of the btrfs_fs_devices list at search_umounted_fs_uuids() and wasn't initialized properly. Fixed using using zalloc

[PATCH] Btrfs: add a check of whether fs_info->fs_root is NULL in btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space()

Kernel panic occurred due to NULL pointer reference in can_overcommit(). Because btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space() passed NULL pointer to btrfs_calc_reclaim_metadata_size(). [ 3756.152833] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix possible leak in btrfs_ioctl_balance()

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:50:06AM +0200, Christian Engelmayer wrote: > Commit 8eb934591f8b ("btrfs: check unsupported filters in balance > arguments") adds a jump to exit label out_bargs in case the argument > check fails. At this point in addition to the bargs memory, the > memory for struct

Re: How to remove missing device on RAID1?

On 2015-10-21 00:40, Henk Slager wrote: > I had a similar issue some time ago, around the time kernel 4.1.6 was > just there. > In case you don't want to wait for new disk or decide to just run the > filesystem with 1 disk less or maybe later on replace 1 of the still > healthy disks with a

Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for btrfs-convert

Anand Jain wrote on 2015/10/21 16:45 +0800: btrfs-convert convert FS with latest default features enabled, and if the kernel is down-rev and does not support a latest feature then mount fails, as expected. This patch disables default features based on the running kernel. Signed-off-by: Anand

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

Anand Jain wrote on 2015/10/21 16:45 +0800: mkfs from latest btrfs-progs will enable latest default features, and if the kernel is down-rev and does not support a latest default feature then mount fails, as expected. This patch disables default features based on the running kernel.

Re: [PATCH 02/10] btrfs-progs: save error number correctly in check_chunks_and_extents

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:28:00PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:41:04PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 07:37:52PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > > > Coverity reports assigning value from "err" to "ret", but that stored > > > value is overwritten by

Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: introduce framework to check kernel supported features

Hi Anand, This feature seems quite good, comment inlined below. Anand Jain wrote on 2015/10/21 16:45 +0800: In the newer kernel, supported kernel features can be known from /sys/fs/btrfs/features however this interface was introduced only after 3.14, and most the incompatible FS features

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-20 15:59, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-10-20 15:20, Duncan wrote: Yes, there's some small but not infinitesimal chance the checksum may be wrong, but if there's two copies of the data and the checksum on one is wrong while the checksum on the other verifies... yes, there's

Re: [devel branch]Btrfs-convert assert at volumes.c:1846

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:33:37AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Finally, the bug is found. Great, thanks! > > A SUPER AWKWARD TYPO Happens ... :) > See the patch just submitted: > [PATCH] btrfs-progs: Fix a typo which causes super_copy corrupted > > And, I think that's also the reason why

Re: Expected behavior of bad sectors on one drive in a RAID1

On 2015-10-21 07:51, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-10-20 15:59, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote: On 2015-10-20 15:20, Duncan wrote: Yes, there's some small but not infinitesimal chance the checksum may be wrong, but if there's two copies of the data and the checksum on one is wrong while the

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: add a check of whether fs_info->fs_root is NULL in btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space()

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 04:20:00PM +0900, Tsutomu Itoh wrote: > Kernel panic occurred due to NULL pointer reference in can_overcommit(). > Because btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space() passed NULL pointer to > btrfs_calc_reclaim_metadata_size(). > fs_info->fs_root is referred in

Re: [PATCH 05/10] btrfs-progs: mute coverity warnings about deadcode

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 07:37:55PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > Coverity reports execution cannot reach this statements. So put WARN_ON > in if-else conditions. > > Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan Applied, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH] btrfs-progs: Fix a typo which causes super_copy corrupted

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:20:44AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > In btrfs_read_dev_super(), a wrong parameter for memcpy will copy wrong > address of a stack pointer to super_copy. > Which will cause a lot of unpredictable error. > > What a stupid typo from myself! > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo

[RFC PATCH 1/3] btrfs-progs: introduce framework to check kernel supported features

In the newer kernel, supported kernel features can be known from /sys/fs/btrfs/features however this interface was introduced only after 3.14, and most the incompatible FS features were introduce before 3.14. This patch proposes to maintain kernel version against the feature list, and so that

[RFC PATCH 3/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for btrfs-convert

btrfs-convert convert FS with latest default features enabled, and if the kernel is down-rev and does not support a latest feature then mount fails, as expected. This patch disables default features based on the running kernel. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain ---

[RFC PATCH 2/3] btrfs-progs: kernel based default features for mkfs

mkfs from latest btrfs-progs will enable latest default features, and if the kernel is down-rev and does not support a latest default feature then mount fails, as expected. This patch disables default features based on the running kernel. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain ---

Re: [RFC PATCH V2] btrfs/ioctl.c: extent_same - Use inode as src which, close to disk beginning

This patch have LOT of errors, sorry, please ignore it. 2015-10-21 4:11 GMT+03:00 Timofey Titovets : > It's just a proof of concept, and i hope to see feedback/ideas/review about > it. > --- > While deduplication, > Btrfs produce extent and file fragmentation > But it's can