| Message ID | 30b7866b2b154b6bbdf3959dfd4ecc754e78c208.1486977712.git.dsterba@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:33:55AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > None of the checks need to know the RO/RW status. > OK...there was a readonly check, which lets us skip all checks, it was removed by the below commit, should we add the check back? commit 1104a8855109a4051d74977f819a13b4516aa11e Author: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> Date: Wed Mar 6 15:57:46 2013 +0100 btrfs: enhance superblock checks The superblock checksum is not verified upon mount. <awkward silence> Add that check and also reorder existing checks to a more logical order. Current mkfs.btrfs does not calculate the correct checksum of super_block and thus a freshly created filesytem will fail to mount when this patch is applied. First transaction commit calculates correct superblock checksum and saves it to disk. Reproducer: $ mfks.btrfs /dev/sda $ mount /dev/sda /mnt $ btrfs scrub start /mnt $ sleep 5 $ btrfs scrub status /mnt ... super:2 ... Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com> Thanks, -liubo > Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 8 +++----- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > index 441a62cd0351..2b06f557c176 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > @@ -64,8 +64,7 @@ > static const struct extent_io_ops btree_extent_io_ops; > static void end_workqueue_fn(struct btrfs_work *work); > static void free_fs_root(struct btrfs_root *root); > -static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > - int read_only); > +static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); > static void btrfs_destroy_ordered_extents(struct btrfs_root *root); > static int btrfs_destroy_delayed_refs(struct btrfs_transaction *trans, > struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); > @@ -2801,7 +2800,7 @@ int open_ctree(struct super_block *sb, > > memcpy(fs_info->fsid, fs_info->super_copy->fsid, BTRFS_FSID_SIZE); > > - ret = btrfs_check_super_valid(fs_info, sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY); > + ret = btrfs_check_super_valid(fs_info); > if (ret) { > btrfs_err(fs_info, "superblock contains fatal errors"); > err = -EINVAL; > @@ -4115,8 +4114,7 @@ int btrfs_read_buffer(struct extent_buffer *buf, u64 parent_transid) > return btree_read_extent_buffer_pages(fs_info, buf, parent_transid); > } > > -static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > - int read_only) > +static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) > { > struct btrfs_super_block *sb = fs_info->super_copy; > u64 nodesize = btrfs_super_nodesize(sb); > -- > 2.10.1 > > -- > 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 -- 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 Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 06:11:56PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:33:55AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > None of the checks need to know the RO/RW status. > > > > OK...there was a readonly check, which lets us skip all checks, > it was removed by the below commit, should we add the check back? All the current checks do not modify the superblock, so it's read-only and we can keep it as-is. The superblock is available from inside the function anyway so we don't need to check sb_flags externally. I'll update the changelog. -- 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 Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:42:07PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 06:11:56PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:33:55AM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > None of the checks need to know the RO/RW status. > > > > > > > OK...there was a readonly check, which lets us skip all checks, > > it was removed by the below commit, should we add the check back? > > All the current checks do not modify the superblock, so it's read-only > and we can keep it as-is. The superblock is available from inside the > function anyway so we don't need to check sb_flags externally. I'll > update the changelog. Yes, this makes sense. 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
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 441a62cd0351..2b06f557c176 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -64,8 +64,7 @@ static const struct extent_io_ops btree_extent_io_ops; static void end_workqueue_fn(struct btrfs_work *work); static void free_fs_root(struct btrfs_root *root); -static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, - int read_only); +static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); static void btrfs_destroy_ordered_extents(struct btrfs_root *root); static int btrfs_destroy_delayed_refs(struct btrfs_transaction *trans, struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); @@ -2801,7 +2800,7 @@ int open_ctree(struct super_block *sb, memcpy(fs_info->fsid, fs_info->super_copy->fsid, BTRFS_FSID_SIZE); - ret = btrfs_check_super_valid(fs_info, sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY); + ret = btrfs_check_super_valid(fs_info); if (ret) { btrfs_err(fs_info, "superblock contains fatal errors"); err = -EINVAL; @@ -4115,8 +4114,7 @@ int btrfs_read_buffer(struct extent_buffer *buf, u64 parent_transid) return btree_read_extent_buffer_pages(fs_info, buf, parent_transid); } -static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, - int read_only) +static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) { struct btrfs_super_block *sb = fs_info->super_copy; u64 nodesize = btrfs_super_nodesize(sb);
None of the checks need to know the RO/RW status. Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)