From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C077C282C0 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BF320870 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:25:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="YltqinzV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727195AbfAWLZR (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:25:17 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-f180.google.com ([209.85.167.180]:39454 "EHLO mail-oi1-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726938AbfAWLZR (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jan 2019 06:25:17 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f180.google.com with SMTP id i6so1486175oia.6 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 03:25:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=j5IaJq2I1thEgUV1P7nh3qeR7I8uKr9Cz+NVtkUf29s=; b=YltqinzVG+nLon+DHyTGSL4mfSvZgcPJitN4XRG0mYE2qC1LL/uHNcA6hqG942OZSr T7aGlGGQIAzQDo1Tjsu+4S/8tTkFI85jKrEGTA+0Yyg2kl5oxr91O8wO82QENl3cGaMK 0cFTE28ItUVaEZKXv/MEh+pflcNAHskzkJxhoK6TgbfzsOV83Tr4X3XQSQwbdE8eGtaf mC6AJcrV5bU2Rc3hBbFSlzZeifMjAFj5tnu8e+KR5Q+B2xGf4GSrPa/S9xuUjI92Vt89 cMBvd3CvI8AaTwoOPikhGUhlukYJla5OZIzH3cNkDxUUIYV5SuLx8Jv7ta+Vp9uyB83/ IXLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=j5IaJq2I1thEgUV1P7nh3qeR7I8uKr9Cz+NVtkUf29s=; b=l/2Va/SzrtofcMLpYh3JOr8w5euQEwukP8yKleHY4p1xQ2w8q2XLYffd7stxQ6Bdii 4zBM/3hLuP061QRKPnouxxuKaQHl9n88nv8Uh6E3VISar1khPFRIobLYn5lk4LBTcS1d c/bzGplTFWlywf+XoG3+tNtQmrAhSdQ1kfblfBX81pJ30Qh2F0wjYBKO2AdeWgs1y5Ym e8Xw60EUC6f8GvN+/DBYBK5UyRQzhw3EMj738u/Rsjp35BHB9Ntg1RyEHRHShgeNWiXv Muo6nwDTLO7M+suoUQ6jAcQq+hHt2n9lDQGUlu7IUbY71gA9cZxw4c6kpR/4LHZV3VIj +fUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdi4wYsnNJ1x8eAPuEsOBuqKtPF+dUuJuHsS6FjhD3aM04dRR4m 2rcTw49Cpxnsjwt4DgWBqKeWGfoD1dKGTLSp+1DslyRf X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4JliMa94TuVLY8VbpnEdqam2pqPSKrFtB5pHD3g56jwj9Izr3qm/zEnkDepq3SoW8Q7HYFm8cIlzfkDgxpcKU= X-Received: by 2002:aca:dd57:: with SMTP id u84mr1195729oig.216.1548242716364; Wed, 23 Jan 2019 03:25:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <110c46c8-6fe9-84ea-0f4e-8269fd8000ed@netspace.net.au> <3cfb98e1-92d4-150c-445c-9357cec9adca@netspace.net.au> In-Reply-To: <3cfb98e1-92d4-150c-445c-9357cec9adca@netspace.net.au> From: Andrei Borzenkov Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:25:03 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Incremental receive completes succesfully despite missing files To: Dennis Katsonis Cc: Btrfs BTRFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:45 PM Dennis Katsonis wrote: > I think my previous e-mail did not go through. Basically, if it is > assumed that a btrfs-receive operation will result in a subvolume which > matches the source file for file, then this assumption or expectation > won't be met if one deletes files from the subvolume at the receiving > end which is going to be referred to as the parent. > This is oxymoron. btrfs send/receive apply to read-only subvolumes. You are not able to modify them. As soon as you remove read-only bit, you are fully responsible for consequences. > This can happen inadvertently, It cannot. You do not inadvertently make subvolume read-write. And if you do, you are expected to know what you are doing. That said, better if btrfs did not allow flipping read-only bit in the first place. > or even through filesystem corruption > (which I experienced). > And if corruption happened after applying changes? End result in the same. Of course it would be perfect if btrfs could notice and warn you, I just do not see how it can realistically be implemented.