Linux-BTRFS Archive on
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Filipe Manana <>
To: Josef Bacik <>
Cc: linux-btrfs <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5][v2] btrfs: fix hole corruption issue with !NO_HOLES
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 17:32:09 +0000
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 7:43 PM Josef Bacik <> wrote:
> v1->v2:
> - fixed a bug in 'btrfs: use the file extent tree infrastructure' that would
>   result in 0 length files because btrfs_truncate_inode_items() was clearing the
>   file extent map when we fsync'ed multiple times.  Validated this with a
>   modified fsx and generic/521 that reproduced the problem, those modifications
>   were sent up as well.
> - dropped the RFC
> ----------------- Original Message -----------------------
> We've historically had this problem where you could flush a targeted section of
> an inode and end up with a hole between extents without a hole extent item.
> This of course makes fsck complain because this is not ok for a file system that
> doesn't have NO_HOLES set.  Because this is a well understood problem I and
> others have been ignoring fsck failures during certain xfstests (generic/475 for
> example) because they would regularly trigger this edge case.
> However this isn't a great behavior to have, we should really be taking all fsck
> failures seriously, and we could potentially ignore fsck legitimate fsck errors
> because we expect it to be this particular failure.
> In order to fix this we need to keep track of where we have valid extent items,
> and only update i_size to encompass that area.  This unfortunately means we need
> a new per-inode extent_io_tree to keep track of the valid ranges.  This is
> relatively straightforward in practice, and helpers have been added to manage
> this so that in the case of a NO_HOLES file system we just simply skip this work
> altogether.
> I've been hammering on this for a week now and I'm pretty sure its ok, but I'd
> really like Filipe to take a look and I still have some longer running tests
> going on the series.  All of our boxes internally are btrfs and the box I was
> testing on ended up with a weird RPM db corruption that was likely from an
> earlier, broken version of the patch.  However I cannot be 100% sure that was
> the case, so I'm giving it a few more days of testing before I'm satisfied
> there's not some weird thing that RPM does that xfstests doesn't cover.
> This has gone through several iterations of xfstests already, including many
> loops of generic/475 for validation to make sure it was no longer failing.  So
> far so good, but for something like this wider testing will definitely be
> necessary.  Thanks,

So a comment that applies to the whole patchset.

On power failures we can now end up with non-prealloc extents beyond
the disk_i_size after mounting the filesystem.

Not entirely sure if it will give any potential problems other then
non-reclaimed space for a long time (unless the file is truncated or
written to or beyond the extent's offset), have you tested this

I suppose the test cases from fstests that use dm's log writes target
exercise this easily.


> Josef

Filipe David Manana,

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”

  parent reply index

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-07 19:42 Josef Bacik
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs: use btrfs_ordered_update_i_size in clone_finish_inode_update Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:01   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 2/5] btrfs: introduce the inode->file_extent_tree Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:10   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 3/5] btrfs: use the file extent tree infrastructure Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:12   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-15 17:20     ` Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:34       ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-16 12:46   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 4/5] btrfs: replace all uses of btrfs_ordered_update_i_size Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:13   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 19:42 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: delete the ordered isize update code Josef Bacik
2020-01-15 17:13   ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-15 17:32 ` Filipe Manana [this message]
2020-01-15 18:44   ` [PATCH 0/5][v2] btrfs: fix hole corruption issue with !NO_HOLES Josef Bacik

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-BTRFS Archive on

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror linux-btrfs/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-btrfs linux-btrfs/ \
	public-inbox-index linux-btrfs

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

AGPL code for this site: git clone