On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:45:17PM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:50:08PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:33:53AM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > > index f7a4ad86adee..e5282a8f566a 100644
> > >
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 11:05:05AM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:50:08PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:33:53AM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > > index f7a4ad86adee..e5282a8f566a 100644
> > >
On 09/04/2021 23:56, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
check_running_fs_exclop() can return 1 when exclop is changed to "none"
The ret is set by the return value of the select() operation. Checking
the exclusive op changes just the exclop variable while ret is still
set to 1.
Set ret exclusively if exclo
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:50:08PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:33:53AM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > index f7a4ad86adee..e5282a8f566a 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > @@ -1339,6 +1339,7
Hi,
The primary problem is Bolt (Thunderbolt 3) tests that are
experiencing a regression when run in a container using overlayfs,
failing at:
Bail out! ERROR:../tests/test-common.c:1413:test_io_dir_is_empty:
'empty' should be FALSE
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/bolt/bolt/-/issues/171#note_87211
What can I do to help get this merged?
Cristoph, is this new patch series with the kernel wrapper API satisfactory?
Best,
Nick
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:45 PM Nick Terrell wrote:
>
> From: Nick Terrell
>
> Please pull from
>
> g...@github.com:terrelln/linux.git tags/v9-zstd-1.4.10
>
> to get
Got this while building bolt in a podman container. I've got reproduce
steps and test files here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948054
[ 3229.119497] overlayfs: upper fs does not support xattr, falling
back to index=off and metacopy=off.
[ 3229.155339] overlayfs: upper fs does not s
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 01:10:03PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 2/26/21 1:30 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 11:26:19AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> Currently select_reloc_root() doesn't return an error, but followup
> >> patches will make it possible for it to return an err
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 07:40:44AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> On 09/04/2021 02:33, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > The tree checker currently rejects unrecognized flags when it reads
> > btrfs_inode_item. Practically, this means that adding a new flag makes
> > the change backwards incompatible if the flag
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:50:08PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 11:33:53AM -0700, Boris Burkov wrote:
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > index f7a4ad86adee..e5282a8f566a 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c
> > @@ -1339,6 +1339,7
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 7:00 PM Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 4/9/2021 4:12 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > This series attempts to clean up part of the mess that has grown around
> > the LSM mount option handling across different subsystems.
> >
> > The original motivation was to fix a NFS+SELinux bu
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:28 PM Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:12:52PM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> > This series attempts to clean up part of the mess that has grown around
> > the LSM mount option handling across different subsystems.
>
> I would not describe growing another FS_..
On 4/9/2021 4:12 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> This series attempts to clean up part of the mess that has grown around
> the LSM mount option handling across different subsystems.
>
> The original motivation was to fix a NFS+SELinux bug that I found while
> trying to get the NFS part of the selinux-
check_running_fs_exclop() can return 1 when exclop is changed to "none"
The ret is set by the return value of the select() operation. Checking
the exclusive op changes just the exclop variable while ret is still
set to 1.
Set ret exclusively if exclop is set to BTRFS_EXCL_NONE.
---
common/utils.c
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 03:24:55PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> v7->v8:
> - Reordered some of the patches, so that the callers of functions that added
> new
> error cases were fixed first, and then added the new error handler.
> - Moved a few of the ASSERT(0) to where they made sense. Left the o
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:36:39PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some question about workqueue for percpu.
>
> > > >
> > > > And a question about this,
> > > > > > > > upper caller:
> > > > > > > > nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > > > > > > > ret = btrfs_drew_lock_init(&root->s
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:39 PM Dennis Zhou wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:39:38PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 4:02 PM Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:28:20PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:50 PM Dennis Zhou
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:39:38PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 4:02 PM Dennis Zhou wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:28:20PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:50 PM Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 05:20:00PM +080
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 01:12:52PM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> This series attempts to clean up part of the mess that has grown around
> the LSM mount option handling across different subsystems.
I would not describe growing another FS_... flag *AND* spreading the
FS_BINARY_MOUNTDATA further,
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 4:02 PM Dennis Zhou wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 03:28:20PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:50 PM Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 05:20:00PM +0800, Wang Yugui wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 11:54 AM Johannes Thumshirn
wrote:
>
> When relocating a block group the freed up space is not discarded. On
> devices like SSDs this hint is useful to tell the device the space is
> freed now. On zoned block devices btrfs' discard code will reset the zone
> the block group
When mounting an NFS export that is a mountpoint on the host, doing the
same mount a second time leads to a security_sb_set_mnt_opts() call on
an already intialized superblock, which leaves the
SECURITY_LSM_NATIVE_LABELS flag unset even if it's provided by the FS.
NFS then obediently clears NFS_CAP
Add a new FS_HANDLES_LSM_OPTS filesystem flag to singal to VFS that the
filesystem does LSM option setting for the given mount on its own, so
the security_sb_set_mnt_opts() call in vfs_get_tree() can be skipped.
This allows the following simplifications:
1. Removal of explicit LSM option handling
This series attempts to clean up part of the mess that has grown around
the LSM mount option handling across different subsystems.
The original motivation was to fix a NFS+SELinux bug that I found while
trying to get the NFS part of the selinux-testsuite [1] to work, which
is fixed by patch 2.
Th
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 05:25:28PM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> This commit moves the location of the superblock logging zones. The new
> locations of the logging zones are now determined based on fixed block
> addresses instead of on fixed zone numbers.
>
> The old placement method based on fixed
When a file gets deleted on a zoned file system, the space freed is not
returned back into the block group's free space, but is migrated to
zone_unusable.
As this zone_unusable space is behind the current write pointer it is not
possible to use it for new allocations. In the current implementation
As a preparation for another user, rename the unused_bgs_mutex into
reclaim_bgs_lock.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn
---
fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 6 +++---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 +-
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 6 +++---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 46 +---
When relocating a block group the freed up space is not discarded. On
devices like SSDs this hint is useful to tell the device the space is
freed now. On zoned block devices btrfs' discard code will reset the zone
the block group is on, freeing up the occupied space.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumsh
When a file gets deleted on a zoned file system, the space freed is not
returned back into the block group's free space, but is migrated to
zone_unusable.
As this zone_unusable space is behind the current write pointer it is not
possible to use it for new allocations. In the current implementation
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:57:32AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 4/8/21 4:25 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> > confusion.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota
>
> Thanks Naohiro, this makes it much easier to understand,
>
> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik
>
> Dave, I know you're on vacation, this needs to
Hi, Dennis Zhou, Vlastimil Babka, Filipe Manana
The root reason of this problem maybe the design of
'memalloc_nofs_restore()/memalloc_nofs_save()'.
When some job such as memory pre-alloc and reclaim is needed, that is
done in a workqueue now.
This is a problem for high-load and over-load. In th
Hi,
Add top/free info when our applicaiton pipeline is running.
> Hi,
>
> some question about workqueue for percpu.
>
> > > >
> > > > And a question about this,
> > > > > > > > upper caller:
> > > > > > > > nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > > > > > > > ret = btrfs_drew_lock_init(&r
Hi,
some question about workqueue for percpu.
> > >
> > > And a question about this,
> > > > > > > upper caller:
> > > > > > > nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
> > > > > > > ret = btrfs_drew_lock_init(&root->snapshot_lock);
> > > > > > > memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag);
> > > >
>
33 matches
Mail list logo
