From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: [patch] btrfs: fix inode rbtree corruption Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:07:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20090820220736.GQ12579@kernel.dk> References: <20090818164542.GB30325@wotan.suse.de> <3d0408630908181156l16ccbc92p529f38cf622949cb@mail.gmail.com> <20090818211910.GR12579@kernel.dk> <20090819084530.GD25721@wotan.suse.de> <20090819084658.GT12579@kernel.dk> <20090819085208.GF25721@wotan.suse.de> <20090819085906.GV12579@kernel.dk> <20090820132346.GN25721@wotan.suse.de> <3d0408630908200651i4bfbf0ebk6b18975e1a06da7e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nick Piggin , Chris Mason , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org To: "Yan, Zheng " Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3d0408630908200651i4bfbf0ebk6b18975e1a06da7e@mail.gmail.com> List-ID: On Thu, Aug 20 2009, Yan, Zheng wrote: > 2009/8/20 Nick Piggin : > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:59:07AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 19 2009, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:46:59AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> > > On Wed, Aug 19 2009, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> > > > See my other reply. It *can* work with key aliases, but this particular > >> > > > code does not. > >> > > > > >> > > > It is pretty easy obviously to put in duplicates because the rbtree > >> > > > code doesn't know about keys, but if we do this then it looks like > >> > > > it might cause the search code to miss some valid inodes and instead > >> > > > return freeing inodes -- so you'd also have to look at that and update > >> > > > it which is why I didn't go down this route.. > >> > > > >> > > Mine was just a generic statement, I didn't read the btrfs code (hence > >> > > my comment about potential lookup bug, if you allow aliases you have to > >> > > be careful). > >> > > >> > Ah ok. Well yeah in this case btrfs is definitely wrong in the way it > >> > tried to insert aliases. > >> > >> I looked at the actual problem now and I agree, it cannot work that way. > >> I don't know if Linus is planning another -rc, we should probably get > >> this upstream sooner rather than later. Chris is away this week, so if > >> we can get Yan to agree on this patch as well, I'll submit it. > > I think the first patch I submitted was agreed? > > > > Of course, thank you. Yan, are you sending this upstream? -- Jens Axboe