linux-kernel - Re: btrfs balance 4.0 regression?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 May 2015 00:15:06 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@....net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: btrfs balance 4.0 regression?

Josh Boyer posted on Thu, 14 May 2015 08:43:25 -0400 as excerpted:

> Hi Omar and Chris,
> 
> We have a bug reported [1] against 4.0 saying that btrfs balance is
> broken.  The reporter found a revert patch that Omar sent [2] to revert
> commit 2f0810880.  Looking in Linus' latest tree, I don't see that
> revert and I don't immediately see a patch to fix the issue Omar
> reported either.
> 
> Do either of you know if this is still an issue?  If not, which commit
> was it fixed by?
> 
> josh
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217191
> [2] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6238111/

Still an issue, officially as of dev comments a day or two ago, at least.

>From various comments including from Chris Mason directly, the devs are 
aware of it, but (from a non-dev list-regular perspective) there's a 
seeming reluctance to simply apply the revert patch.  Not being a dev I 
can't explain why tho I can speculate that the patch is logically correct 
and simply triggers this other bug.  But further patches have yet to 
appear.

Part of the problem may be a bit of confusion as some of the devs 
evidently thought the revert patch fixed the problem and hadn't been 
worrying about it until others pointed out the revert hadn't been applied 
and the problem thus remained.

So as of now, the choice appears to be broken balance-convert with the 
current code, or broken ext*-convert with that patch reverted.  Both 
cases aren't entirely common, so I guess it's up to you which you want to 
break ATM.  For the list, however, current status is revert not applied, 
and balance-convert known to be broken.

Non-convert balance should however continue to work just fine.

Beyond that... well, maybe we'll get a bit more explanation or a new 
patch off this thread. =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/