Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 02:44:35PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > Just to cut yourself some slack, you could skip 3.14 because it's EOL > now, and just go from 4.4. Don't the btrfs-tools used to create the filesystem also play a huge role in this game? Greetings Marc --

[PATCH] Btrfs: remove BUG_ON in start_transaction

Since we could get errors from the concurrent aborted transaction, the check of this BUG_ON in start_transaction is not true any more. Say, while flushing free space cache inode's dirty pages, btrfs_finish_ordered_io -> btrfs_join_transaction_nolock (the transaction has been aborted.)

[PATCH] Btrfs: fix memory leak in do_walk_down

The extent buffer 'next' needs to be free'd conditionally. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index 5a940ab..779fd72 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++

[PATCH v6 1/6] fstests: common: Introduce _post_mount_hook for btrfs

Introduce _post_mount_hook(), which will be executed after mounting scratch/test. It's quite useful for fs(OK, only btrfs yet, again) which needs to use ioctl other than mount option to enable some of its feature. Now only btrfs quota needs this hook to allow enabling quota to be enabled for

[PATCH v6 2/6] fstests: common: rename _require_btrfs to _require_btrfs_subcommand

Rename _require_btrfs() to _require_btrfs_subcommand() to avoid confusion, as all other _require_btrfs_* has a quite clear suffix, like _require_btrfs_mkfs_feature() or _require_btrfs_fs_feature(). Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- common/rc | 2 +- tests/btrfs/004 | 2

[PATCH v6 3/6] fstests: Add btrfs dedupe post mount hook

Now fstests can run any test cases with btrfs inband-dedupe enabled. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- common/rc | 20 ++-- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc index 636cba6..e0da69b 100644 --- a/common/rc +++

[PATCH v6 4/6] fstests: btrfs: Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication

Add basic test for btrfs in-band de-duplication(inmemory backend), including: 1) Enable 3) Dedup rate 4) File correctness 5) Disable Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo --- common/defrag | 13 ++ tests/btrfs/200 | 116

[PATCH v6 6/6] fstests: btrfs: Test inband dedupe with data balance.

Btrfs balance will reloate date extent, but its hash is removed too late at run_delayed_ref() time, which will cause extent ref increased during balance, cause either find_data_references() gives WARN_ON() or even run_delayed_refs() fails and cause transaction abort. Add such concurrency test for

[PATCH v6 0/6] Btrfs in-band de-duplication test cases

Btrfs in-band de-duplication test case for in-memory backend. With extra option ALWAYS_ENABLE_BTRFS_FEATURE macro to enable dedupe/quota for all test cases. This is quite handy to hugely increase the coverage without introducing a lot new test cases. v6: Introduce ALWAYS_ENABLE_BTRFS_FEATURE

[PATCH v6 5/6] fstests: btrfs: Add testcase for btrfs dedupe and metadata balance race test

Btrfs balance with inband dedupe enable/disable will expose a lot of hidden dedupe bug: 1) Enable/disable race bug 2) Btrfs dedupe tree balance corrupted delayed_ref 3) Btrfs disable and balance will cause balance BUG_ON Reported-by: Satoru Takeuchi

mkfs+mount failure of small fs on ppc64

on ppc64, 4.7-rc kernel, git btrfs-progs, v4.7.2: # truncate --size=500m testfile # ./mkfs.btrfs testfile # mkdir -p mnt # mount -o loop testfile mnt btrfs-progs v4.7.2 See http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org for more information. Label: (null) UUID:

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

>From the fsck... bad block 160420741120 I can't tell though if that's a bad Btrfs leaf/node where both dup copies are bad; or if it's a bad sector. I'd mount it ro, and take a backup of anything you care about before proceeding further. smartctl -x might reveal if there are problems the drive

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 09/13/2016 04:49 PM, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Hi guys, One more time I saw the problem. It begins to happen on a daily basis now. Unfortunately the `enospc_debug` flag did not help. I did not see any new information in the logs. This time, only a hard reset worked. I could not even

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

On 13-09-2016 16:39, Chris Murphy wrote: I just wouldn't use btrfs repair with this version of progs, go back to v4.6.1 or upgrade to 4.7.2. Thanks for the tip. I upgraded to 4.7.2. Cesar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

Hi guys, One more time I saw the problem. It begins to happen on a daily basis now. Unfortunately the `enospc_debug` flag did not help. I did not see any new information in the logs. This time, only a hard reset worked. I could not even reboot using gnome panel. Best regards, Ronan Arraes -- To

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

On 13-09-2016 16:49, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: I'd be kind of curious to see the results from btrfs check run without repair, but I doubt that will help narrow things down any further. Attached. As of right now, the absolute first thing I'd do is check your logs to see if you can find any

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2016-09-13 15:20, Cesar Strauss wrote: >> >> btrfs-progs v4.7 > > It's always good to see people who are staying up-to-date on the kernel and > userspace :) Yes, although it and 4.7.1 are marked as do not

Re: State of the fuzzer

I've booted another instance with btrfs-progs checked out to 2b7c507 and collected some bugs which remained from the run before the current one. The current run discovered what qgroups are just three days ago and will spend some time on that. I've also added UBSAN- and MSAN-logging to my setup and

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

On 09/08/2016 07:02 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/8/16 2:49 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote: On 9/8/16 2:24 PM, Ronan Arraes Jardim Chagas wrote: Hi all! Em Seg, 2016-09-05 às 16:49 +0800, Qu Wenruo escreveu: Just like what Wang has mentioned, would you please paste all the output of the contents of

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

On 2016-09-13 15:20, Cesar Strauss wrote: Hello, I have a BTRFS filesystem that is reverting to read-only after a few moments of use. There is a stack trace visible in the kernel log, which is attached. Here is my system information: # uname -a Linux rescue 4.7.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat

Re: Filesystem forced to readonly after use

I just wouldn't use btrfs repair with this version of progs, go back to v4.6.1 or upgrade to 4.7.2. You could do an offline check (no repair) and see if that reveals anything useful for developers. But I can't tell what's going on from the call trace. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe from

Filesystem forced to readonly after use

Hello, I have a BTRFS filesystem that is reverting to read-only after a few moments of use. There is a stack trace visible in the kernel log, which is attached. Here is my system information: # uname -a Linux rescue 4.7.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat Aug 20 23:02:56 CEST 2016 x86_64

Re: [RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

Hi Anand, these are great news! Thanks for yor work. I'm looking forward to use the encryption. I would like to ask a few question regarding the feature set. 1. is encryption of an existing, filled and unencrypted subvolume without manually moving the data possible? 2. What about encrypting

Re: possible recursive locking detected, 4.8.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc25.x86_64+debug

Still happens in rc6. [ 588.463987] = [ 588.463988] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] [ 588.463998] 4.8.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc25.x86_64+debug #1 Tainted: GW [ 588.463998] - [ 588.464000]

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Encryption: Add btrfs encryption support

Hi Anand, [auto build test WARNING on btrfs/next] [cannot apply to v4.8-rc6 next-20160913] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to record what (pub

Re: Mixing partitioned and non-partitioned discs in a RAID?

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Kai Krakow wrote: > Am Sun, 21 Aug 2016 02:19:33 + (UTC) > schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>: > >> Chris Murphy posted on Sat, 20 Aug 2016 18:36:21 -0600 as excerpted: >> >> > FAT leaves a lot to be desired but it's pretty universally

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Encryption: Add btrfs encryption support

Hi Anand, [auto build test WARNING on btrfs/next] [cannot apply to v4.8-rc6 next-20160913] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to record what (pub

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Encryption: Add btrfs encryption support

Hi Anand, [auto build test WARNING on btrfs/next] [cannot apply to v4.8-rc6 next-20160913] [if your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, please drop us a note to help improve the system] [Suggest to use git(>=2.9.0) format-patch --base= (or --base=auto for convenience) to record what (pub

[PATCH 2/2] btrfs-progs: add encryption support

Based on v4.7.2 Depends on keyctl-utils and libscrypt packages. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- Makefile.in | 5 +- btrfs-list.c | 23 +++ cmds-filesystem.c | 4 +- cmds-restore.c| 16 ++ cmds-subvolume.c | 101 +++- commands.h| 1 +

[PATCH] fstests: btrfs: support encryption

This will help to test kernel encryption patch, and when compiled with the below defines. So to use the existing fstests test-cases on top of encryption. diff --git a/fs/btrfs/encrypt.h b/fs/btrfs/encrypt.h index 8e794da9d8f5..1ae6840d0742 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/encrypt.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/encrypt.h

[RFC] Preliminary BTRFS Encryption

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, however here below is the quick example on the cli usage. Please try out,

[PATCH] btrfs: Encryption: Add btrfs encryption support

Adds encryption support. Based on v4.7-rc3. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- fs/btrfs/Makefile | 4 +- fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h | 6 + fs/btrfs/compression.c | 30 +- fs/btrfs/compression.h | 10 +- fs/btrfs/ctree.h

[PATCH 1/2] btrfs-progs: make wait_for_commit non static

wait_for_commit() is needed by encrypt patch set so this patch makes it non static. Also as utils.h is included twice deletes one of it. Signed-off-by: Anand Jain --- btrfs-list.c | 10 ++ cmds-subvolume.c | 11 --- utils.h | 1 + 3 files

Re: BTRFS constantly reports "No space left on device" even with a huge unallocated space

Hi! Em Ter, 2016-09-13 às 11:17 +0800, Wang Xiaoguang escreveu: > It maybe a irrelevant question, but do you have compression enabled? > > Regards, > Xiaoguang Wang No, I do not have compression enabled. I'm using openSUSE's default configuration. By the way, I was wrongly mounting the

Re: Security implications of btrfs receive?

On 2016-09-12 16:25, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: After device discovery, specify UUID= instead of a device node. Oh yeah good point, -U --uuid is also doable. I'm not sure what the benefit is of using sysfs to delete

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

Am Dienstag, 13. September 2016, 07:28:38 CEST schrieb Austin S. Hemmelgarn: > On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > >> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: > >>> On Mon, Sep

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:08, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: Things listed as TBD status: 1. Seeding: Seems to work fine the couple of times I've tested it, however I've only done very light testing, and the whole feature is

Commit 'synchronize incompat feature bits with sysfs files' still missing in for-next?

I've noticed that the 4.5-rc commit 14e46e04: 'btrfs: synchronize incompat feature bits with sysfs files' [1] was reverted later in [2], but despite fixes to protect sysfs with locks & exorcise GFP_NOFS in favor of GFP_KERNEL it was never reinstated - neither for 4.5-final, nor later..and it's

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2016,

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

On 2016-09-13 04:38, Timofey Titovets wrote: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I suggest to mark RAID1/10 as 'mostly ok' as on btrfs RAID1/10 is safe to data, but not for application that uses it. i.e. it not hide I/O error even if it's can be masked.

Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status I suggest to mark RAID1/10 as 'mostly ok' as on btrfs RAID1/10 is safe to data, but not for application that uses it. i.e. it not hide I/O error even if it's can be masked. https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg56739.html /* Retest it with

ENOSPACE linux 4.8-rc6 BTRFS: space_info 4 has 18446743524878843904 free, is not full

Hi, this is vanilla linux 4.8-rc6 and i still have ENOSPC issues with btrfs - caused by wrong space_tree entries. [ 9736.921995] [ cut here ] [ 9736.923342] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 23942 at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:5734 btrfs_free_block_groups+0x35e/0x440 [btrfs] [