| Message ID | 1426138847-10851-1-git-send-email-bo.li.liu@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
I sent such patch some time ago but was rejected by Chris, hopes this time it can be accepted. This one can make btrfs much more robust. Thanks, Qu -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PATCH] Revert "Btrfs: allow superblock mismatch from older mkfs" From: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> To: <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org> Date: 2015?03?12? 13:40 > This reverts commit 667e7d94a1683661cff5fe9a0fa0d7f8fdd2c007. > > This was used to make sure that a fresh btrfs from an older mkfs.btrfs, > and it also allows us to mount a buggy btrfs if this btrfs has the right > superblock head part but has something wrong with chunk tree part[1], and > after that we can hit BUG_ON()s set in the code to prevent something > impossible. > > Since David has gave us "Btrfs progs v3.19-rc2", just remove the check, > if anyone who wants to make a fresh btrfs, please use the latest one. > > [1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg42358.html > > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> > > Conflicts: > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > --- > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 ------ > 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > index 41b320e..f63aacf 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > @@ -418,12 +418,6 @@ static int btrfs_check_super_csum(char *raw_disk_sb) > > if (memcmp(raw_disk_sb, result, csum_size)) > ret = 1; > - > - if (ret && btrfs_super_generation(disk_sb) < 10) { > - printk(KERN_WARNING > - "BTRFS: super block crcs don't match, older mkfs detected\n"); > - ret = 0; > - } > } > > if (csum_type >= ARRAY_SIZE(btrfs_csum_sizes)) { > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:40:47PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > This reverts commit 667e7d94a1683661cff5fe9a0fa0d7f8fdd2c007. > > This was used to make sure that a fresh btrfs from an older mkfs.btrfs, > and it also allows us to mount a buggy btrfs if this btrfs has the right > superblock head part but has something wrong with chunk tree part[1], and > after that we can hit BUG_ON()s set in the code to prevent something > impossible. > > Since David has gave us "Btrfs progs v3.19-rc2", just remove the check, > if anyone who wants to make a fresh btrfs, please use the latest one. I think the fixed progs are out long enough and the combination of really old progs + really new kernel is very uncommon and we don't need to care about that anymore. However, please do not do it as a revert, it's a normal patch although it effectively reverts some other patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:45:05PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > I sent such patch some time ago but was rejected by Chris, > hopes this time it can be accepted. http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg34937.html I'm OK with removing the special case now because there are additional supreblock checks merged (3.19) that were motivated by your previous attempt to remove it. o btrfs: add more checks to btrfs_read_sys_array o btrfs: cleanup, rename a few variables in btrfs_read_sys_array o btrfs: add checks for sys_chunk_array sizes o btrfs: more superblock checks, lower bounds on devices and sectorsize/nodesize -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:25:13PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:40:47PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > This reverts commit 667e7d94a1683661cff5fe9a0fa0d7f8fdd2c007. > > > > This was used to make sure that a fresh btrfs from an older mkfs.btrfs, > > and it also allows us to mount a buggy btrfs if this btrfs has the right > > superblock head part but has something wrong with chunk tree part[1], and > > after that we can hit BUG_ON()s set in the code to prevent something > > impossible. > > > > Since David has gave us "Btrfs progs v3.19-rc2", just remove the check, > > if anyone who wants to make a fresh btrfs, please use the latest one. > > I think the fixed progs are out long enough and the combination of > really old progs + really new kernel is very uncommon and we don't need > to care about that anymore. > > However, please do not do it as a revert, it's a normal patch although > it effectively reverts some other patch. Okay, I'll update this ASAP, thanks for your review. Thanks, -liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:34:15PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:45:05PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > I sent such patch some time ago but was rejected by Chris, > > hopes this time it can be accepted. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg34937.html > > I'm OK with removing the special case now because there are additional > supreblock checks merged (3.19) that were motivated by your previous > attempt to remove it. So David, are you going to take the above patch instead? I'm okay with that since they're exactly same, but it'd be good that Qu has its commit log updated. Thanks, -liubo > > o btrfs: add more checks to btrfs_read_sys_array > o btrfs: cleanup, rename a few variables in btrfs_read_sys_array > o btrfs: add checks for sys_chunk_array sizes > o btrfs: more superblock checks, lower bounds on devices and sectorsize/nodesize > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 04:15:08AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:34:15PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:45:05PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > I sent such patch some time ago but was rejected by Chris, > > > hopes this time it can be accepted. > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg34937.html > > > > I'm OK with removing the special case now because there are additional > > supreblock checks merged (3.19) that were motivated by your previous > > attempt to remove it. > > So David, are you going to take the above patch instead? > > I'm okay with that since they're exactly same, but it'd be good that > Qu has its commit log updated. Although Qu's patch was first and should be normally applied in case more patches doing the same thing, the changelog reasoning is IMHO not all fine, so I'm inclined to take your patch if you refine the subject, and drop the "Conflicts:". Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "Btrfs: allow superblock mismatch from older mkfs" From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> To: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> Date: 2015?03?17? 00:25 > On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 04:15:08AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:34:15PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 01:45:05PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>> I sent such patch some time ago but was rejected by Chris, >>>> hopes this time it can be accepted. >>> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg34937.html >>> >>> I'm OK with removing the special case now because there are additional >>> supreblock checks merged (3.19) that were motivated by your previous >>> attempt to remove it. >> >> So David, are you going to take the above patch instead? >> >> I'm okay with that since they're exactly same, but it'd be good that >> Qu has its commit log updated. > > Although Qu's patch was first and should be normally applied in case > more patches doing the same thing, the changelog reasoning is IMHO not > all fine, so I'm inclined to take your patch if you refine the subject, > and drop the "Conflicts:". Thanks. > I'm completely OK with picking Liu's patch, since his patch is submitted at a much more appropriate time than mine. My patch is somewhat too early. Thanks, Qu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 41b320e..f63aacf 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -418,12 +418,6 @@ static int btrfs_check_super_csum(char *raw_disk_sb) if (memcmp(raw_disk_sb, result, csum_size)) ret = 1; - - if (ret && btrfs_super_generation(disk_sb) < 10) { - printk(KERN_WARNING - "BTRFS: super block crcs don't match, older mkfs detected\n"); - ret = 0; - } } if (csum_type >= ARRAY_SIZE(btrfs_csum_sizes)) {
This reverts commit 667e7d94a1683661cff5fe9a0fa0d7f8fdd2c007. This was used to make sure that a fresh btrfs from an older mkfs.btrfs, and it also allows us to mount a buggy btrfs if this btrfs has the right superblock head part but has something wrong with chunk tree part[1], and after that we can hit BUG_ON()s set in the code to prevent something impossible. Since David has gave us "Btrfs progs v3.19-rc2", just remove the check, if anyone who wants to make a fresh btrfs, please use the latest one. [1]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg42358.html Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> Conflicts: fs/btrfs/disk-io.c --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)