From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Cc: linux-lvm@msede.com, marcelo@conectiva.com.br
Subject: [linux-lvm] Re: LVM 2.2 snapshot bug
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:21:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20001107142152.G1276@inspiron.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.05.10011071151180.21541-100000@humbolt.nl.linux.org>; from riel@conectiva.com.br on Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:55:42AM +0100
On Tue, Nov 07, 2000 at 11:55:42AM +0100, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On snapshot creation, the snapshot block device (/dev/vg0/snap1)
> is NOT made a read-only device, so ext3 tries to do journal
It is made read only.
> (leading to all kinds of nasty oopses)
Could you show me the Oopses?
> It should be easy enough to do an set_device_ro() on the LVM
> snapshot, shouldn't it?
That shouldn't be necessary. The way LVM handle this looks correct
to me, but maybe it's never been tested in the ll_rw_block layer because the
open(O_RDWR) check always handled it with ext2. Maybe ext3 forces writes via
ll_rw_block also when the device is mounted read only (probably when doing log
reply?) and maybe it hits the ll_rw_block check for the first time.
Currently we choose if a device is readable or not using the
VM_WRITE bitflag in the lv->lv_access field. If the bitflag is set
the device is writeable. You'll find that the snapshots has that bitflag
unset (please verify via /proc that they don't have the W capability set).
If the snapshot is not writeable as expected, the lvm hook in ll_rw_block
should return -1 and ll_rw_block should goto sorry just like if we would be
using the ro_bits via set_device_ro. So it should not be necessary
to use the set_device_ro.
Or maybe the bug is in ext3 that doesn't handle real read only blockdevices?
> That would fix the oopses I've been seeing and would make
Hopefully the Oopses will tell us more about this ext3/snapshot collision.
Also please ensure you can reproduce with 2.2.18pre17aa1 or 2.4.0-test10 to
make sure we're looking at the same sources.
Andrea
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-07 13:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-07 10:55 [linux-lvm] LVM 2.2 snapshot bug Rik van Riel
2000-11-07 12:16 ` Heinz J. Mauelshagen
2000-11-07 14:42 ` Rik van Riel
2000-11-07 13:21 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2000-11-07 14:56 ` [linux-lvm] " Rik van Riel
2000-11-07 16:45 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-07 17:04 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-11-07 19:51 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-07 20:36 ` Andreas Dilger
2000-11-08 11:11 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-11-08 16:16 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-08 19:08 ` Andreas Dilger
2000-11-08 11:10 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2000-11-08 16:53 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-07 23:04 ` Rik van Riel
2000-11-08 7:55 ` Heinz Mauelshagen
2000-11-08 13:44 ` Rik van Riel
2000-11-08 16:31 ` Andrea Arcangeli
[not found] ` <898720000.973701988@coffee>
2000-11-08 17:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2000-11-08 19:11 ` Andreas Dilger
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=20001107142152.G1276@inspiron.random \
--to=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=linux-lvm@msede.com \
--cc=marcelo@conectiva.com.br \
--cc=riel@conectiva.com.br \
/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