Re: btrfs restore corrupt file

[Jorge Bastos <jorge.mrbastos@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the replies.

Good to know it's working as expected, and I'm glad restore permits
restoring a corrupt file since this may be desirable in some cases,
but agree with Chris that it would be nice to get a warning if
corruption is found or suspected.

Jorge

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:43 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年11月23日 13:25, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Jorge Bastos <jorge.mrbastos@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> While doing btrfs checksum testing I purposely corrupted a file and
>>> got the expect I/O error when trying to copy it, I also tested btrfs
>>> restore to see if I could recover a known corrupt file and it did copy
>>> it but there was no checksum error or warning. I used btrfs restore -v
>>>
>>> Is this expect behavior or should restore warn about checksum failures?
>>>
>>> Kernel used was 4.13.13,  btrfs-progs v4.13.2
>>
>> I think it's expected. "The checks done by restore are less strict"
>> from the man page. Although it'd be nice if -v option at least could
>> flag such files as possibly being corrupt.
>>
> I think people always consider "btrfs restore" as a tool to "restore" data.
>
> The proper name of it should be "salvage" and moved under "btrfs
> rescue", to reduce the confusion.
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>