From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] btrfs-progs: rework how we traverse rootdir
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:42:35 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1722492491.git.wqu@suse.com> (raw)
[CHANGELOG]
v2:
- Change the current_path.level, so that 0 means uninitialized
This makes the current_path level to match the ftwbuf level.
- Add a comment explaining how the current_path stack works
With an example layout and stack changes.
- Add two new test cases
Both test cases are for the old rootdir bugs:
* Extra hard link are out of the rootdir
Old --rootdir will create a corrupted fs with incorrect nlink.
This is because we use st_nlink without any extra verification
* Conflicting inode numbers caused by different mount points
Old --rootdir will fail gracefully, but still not ideal as the error
message doesn't explain it at all.
This is because we use st_inode without any extra verification
- Newline and typo fixes
Thanks to Mark's recent work, I finally get some time to rework rootdir
traversal.
All the problems are described inside the second patch.
While the last patch is a small enhancement to --rootdir to reject hard
links.
With this change, it's much easier to support subvolume creations at
mkfs time:
- Create a hashmap (or other similar structure) to record all the
directories that should be subvolume
- Call btrfs_make_subvoume() other than btrfs_insert_inode() if a path
should be a subvolume
- Call btrfs_link_subvolume() other than btrfs_add_link() for a
subvolume
Everything like parent directory inode size is properly handled by
btrfs_link_subvolume() and btrfs_add_link() already.
Qu Wenruo (5):
btrfs-progs: constify the name parameter of btrfs_add_link()
btrfs-progs: mkfs: rework how we traverse rootdir
btrfs-progs: rootdir: warn about hard links
btrfs-progs: mkfs-tests: a new test case to verify handling of hard
links
btrfs-progs: mkfs-tests: verify cross mount point behavior for rootdir
kernel-shared/ctree.h | 2 +-
kernel-shared/inode.c | 2 +-
mkfs/rootdir.c | 711 ++++++++----------
mkfs/rootdir.h | 8 -
.../034-rootdir-extra-hard-links/test.sh | 24 +
.../035-rootdir-cross-mount/test.sh | 46 ++
6 files changed, 377 insertions(+), 416 deletions(-)
create mode 100755 tests/mkfs-tests/034-rootdir-extra-hard-links/test.sh
create mode 100755 tests/mkfs-tests/035-rootdir-cross-mount/test.sh
--
2.45.2
next reply other threads:[~2024-08-01 6:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-01 6:12 Qu Wenruo [this message]
2024-08-01 6:12 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] btrfs-progs: constify the name parameter of btrfs_add_link() Qu Wenruo
2024-08-01 6:12 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] btrfs-progs: mkfs: rework how we traverse rootdir Qu Wenruo
2024-08-01 6:12 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] btrfs-progs: rootdir: warn about hard links Qu Wenruo
2024-08-01 6:12 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] btrfs-progs: mkfs-tests: a new test case to verify handling of " Qu Wenruo
2024-08-01 6:12 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] btrfs-progs: mkfs-tests: verify cross mount point behavior for rootdir Qu Wenruo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=cover.1722492491.git.wqu@suse.com \
--to=wqu@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox