| Message ID | 1483604700-21017-5-git-send-email-robbieko@synology.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 8:24 AM, robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote: > From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > > Under certain situations, an incremental send operation can Again, missing some word after the word "can". Copy pasting change logs is not that good.... > a rmdir operation that will make the receiving end fail when > attempting to execute it, because the path is not exist. > > Example scenario: > Parent snapshot: > |---- d259_old/ (ino 259, gen 96) > |---- d1/ (ino 258, gen 96) > |---- f (ino 257, gen 96) > > Send snapshot: > |---- d258/ (ino 258, gen 98) > |---- d259/ (ino 259, gen 98) > |---- d1/ (ino 257, gen 98) Please try to align things for easier readability. > > unlink f > mkdir o257-98-0 > mkdir o259-98-0 > chown o257-98-0 - uid=0, gid=0 > chmod o257-98-0 - mode=0755 > rmdir o258-96-0 > ERROR: rmdir o258-96-0 failed: No such file or directory Same comment as before (patch 1/6). Don't just paste the output of receive -vv out of nowhere without mentioning what it is. > > While computing the send stream the following steps happen: > > 1) While processing inode 257 we create o257-98-0 and o259-98-0, > then delay o257-98-0 rename operation because its new parent > in the send snapshot, inode 259, was not yet processed and therefore > not yet renamed; > > 2) Later we want to delete d1 (ino 258, gen 96) while processing inode > 258. In order to get its path for delete, we need to check if it is > overwritten in the send snapshot. And we find it is overwritten so > we delete it via unique name , which leads to error. The reason is > we will find out d1 is under parent directory (inode 259) in the send > snapshot, and for this case, because d1(inode 257, gen 98) is not same > as d1 (inode 258, gen 96), we conclude d1 has been overwritten. > > Fix this by adding generation check for the parent directory. Because > both parent directory are not identical, we can just skip the overwrite > check. In addition, inode 256 should not check for this since it is a > subvolume. I've heavily reworded the change log and included the patch in my 4.11 integration branch. Thanks. > > Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > --- > V3: improve the change log > fs/btrfs/send.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > index eaf1c92..139f492 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > @@ -1938,6 +1938,19 @@ static int did_overwrite_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx, > if (ret <= 0) > goto out; > > + if (dir != BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID) { > + ret = get_inode_info(sctx->send_root, dir, NULL, &gen, NULL, > + NULL, NULL, NULL); > + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENOENT) > + goto out; > + if (ret) { > + ret = 0; > + goto out; > + } > + if (gen != dir_gen) > + goto out; > + } > + > /* check if the ref was overwritten by another ref */ > ret = lookup_dir_item_inode(sctx->send_root, dir, name, name_len, > &ow_inode, &other_type); > -- > 1.9.1 > > -- > 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
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c index eaf1c92..139f492 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c @@ -1938,6 +1938,19 @@ static int did_overwrite_ref(struct send_ctx *sctx, if (ret <= 0) goto out; + if (dir != BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID) { + ret = get_inode_info(sctx->send_root, dir, NULL, &gen, NULL, + NULL, NULL, NULL); + if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENOENT) + goto out; + if (ret) { + ret = 0; + goto out; + } + if (gen != dir_gen) + goto out; + } + /* check if the ref was overwritten by another ref */ ret = lookup_dir_item_inode(sctx->send_root, dir, name, name_len, &ow_inode, &other_type);