Btrfs v0.14 Released
Chris Mason
Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has
changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of Btrfs.
For downloads and documention, please see the Btrfs project page:
The oss.oracle.com Btrfs project page will soon start redirecting here.
v0.14 has a few performance fixes and closes some races that could have
allowed corrupted metadata in v0.13. The major new feature is the ability to
manage multiple devices under a single Btrfs mount. Raid0, raid1 and raid10
are supported.
Even for single device filesystems, metadata is now duplicated by default.
Checksums are verified after reads finish and duplicate copies are used if the
checksums don't match.
Multi-device design details can be found here:
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Multiple_Device_Support
And sample usage to create and add volumes can be found here:
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Using_Btrfs_with_Multiple_Devices
I'm putting up some benchmarks of the new multi-device code as the runs
finish:
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Multi-device_Benchmarks
Next up on the Btrfs todo list is finishing off the device removal and IO
error handling code. After that I'll add more fine grained locking to the
btrees.
Thanks to everyone who has helped contribute to and test this release.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majo...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Chris Mason
> Hello everyone,
>
> Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has
> changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of Btrfs.
>
> For downloads and documention, please see the Btrfs project page:
>
> http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
>
Hello everyone,
I've rolled up some fixes for older kernels and fixed an uninitialized
variables in btrfs-progs that could cause an oops on mount. I'll wait a few
days to see if other bug reports come in and cut a 0.15 with any other
critical fixes.
Until then, you can find download information on the important fixes so far:
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Hot_Fixes
Jeff Schroeder
> On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk format has
> > changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of Btrfs.
> >
> > For downloads and documention, please see the Btrfs project page:
> >
> > http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
> >
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I've rolled up some fixes for older kernels and fixed an uninitialized
> variables in btrfs-progs that could cause an oops on mount. I'll wait a few
> days to see if other bug reports come in and cut a 0.15 with any other
> critical fixes.
on digging into
it more before spending a bug report, but will send it tonight after
getting to the affected
machine.
With 1 volume on 1 disk, 2 volumes raid1 on 2 disks, or with 2 volumes
raid0 on 2 disks.
something like:
echo omg > /mnt/btrfs/file
Would segfault, exit the current shell, and leave a nice stack trace
in the kernel's ring buffer.
The file gets created as 0 bytes. Unlinking the file works fine via
rm, but any sort of write fails.
Tried and reproduced the bug with stdout redirection, cp, and dd to a
btrfs v0.14 volume.
Will send the report later today.
>
> Until then, you can find download information on the important fixes so far:
>
> http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Hot_Fixes
>
>
>
> -chris
--
Jeff Schroeder
Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
http://www.digitalprognosis.com
Chris Mason
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Chris Mason <chris...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > Hello everyone,
> > >
> > > Btrfs v0.14 is now available for download. Please note the disk
> > > format has changed, and it is not compatible with older versions of
> > > Btrfs.
> > >
> > > For downloads and documention, please see the Btrfs project page:
> > >
> > > http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > I've rolled up some fixes for older kernels and fixed an uninitialized
> > variables in btrfs-progs that could cause an oops on mount. I'll wait a
> > few days to see if other bug reports come in and cut a 0.15 with any
> > other critical fixes.
>
> Well it oopses on writes everytime in Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy). I'd planned
> on digging into
> it more before spending a bug report, but will send it tonight after
> getting to the affected
> machine.
This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this patch:
If there is a #ifdef IM_A_UBUNTU_KERNEL I can use, I'll do it. Jeff Mahoney
has a similar patch for SUSE that I've been meaning to merge, but I wanted to
lookup some way to check for ubuntu as well.
-chris
diff -r e7da2489b19b file.c
--- a/file.c Wed Apr 30 13:59:35 2008 -0400
+++ b/file.c Thu May 01 12:25:11 2008 -0400
@@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_file_write(struct f
goto out_nolock;
if (count == 0)
goto out_nolock;
- err = remove_suid(fdentry(file));
+ err = remove_suid(&file->f_path);
if (err)
goto out_nolock;
file_update_time(file);
Jeff Schroeder
suggestions for Chris?
--
Jeff Schroeder
Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
http://www.digitalprognosis.com
Tim Gardner
Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does not
have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU kernel is
not specific enough.
rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.g...@ubuntu.com
Chris Mason
[ btrfs oops on ubuntu ]
> >> This is because ubuntu kernels ship with apparmor, you'll need this
> >> patch:
> >>
> >> If there is a #ifdef IM_A_UBUNTU_KERNEL I can use, I'll do it. Jeff
> >> Mahoney has a similar patch for SUSE that I've been meaning to merge,
> >> but I wanted to lookup some way to check for ubuntu as well.
> >>
> >> -chris
> >>
> >> diff -r e7da2489b19b file.c
> >> --- a/file.c Wed Apr 30 13:59:35 2008 -0400
> >> +++ b/file.c Thu May 01 12:25:11 2008 -0400
> >> @@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_file_write(struct f
> >> goto out_nolock;
> >> if (count == 0)
> >> goto out_nolock;
> >> - err = remove_suid(fdentry(file));
> >> + err = remove_suid(&file->f_path);
> >> if (err)
> >> goto out_nolock;
> >> file_update_time(file);
>
> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does not
> have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU kernel is
> not specific enough.
I've been assuming the apparmor patches change remove_suid even when they are
not enabled in the config.
-chris
Jeff Mahoney
Hash: SHA1
Yeah, unless Ubuntu is doing some magic with the function arguments
(which sounds like the fix is worse than the problem), this is true.
- -Jeff
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIGhmULPWxlyuTD7IRAgJcAJ4zYYcgQ2V0eT6Fv6LstlwpnK9bUwCgpdBD
XHUzfiFBd+HQLt5Tw5vHH0A=
=KWIZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tim Gardner
Lets get Kees involved. He developed the patch set for Hardy. I would
hope that if CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=n then the source would default to
its normal state.
rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.g...@ubuntu.com
Kees Cook
I can't claim to have developed the patches, only helping coordinate
their merging into Ubuntu. John Johansen is the real person we should
check with -- he did all the heavy lifting -- now added to discussion.
(Hi John!)
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Ubuntu Security Team
Jeff Mahoney
Hash: SHA1
remove_suid() isn't the only change AppArmor makes to the VFS interface.
It's pretty invasive and requires that dentries are passed with a
companion vfsmount in most cases. Putting #ifdefs around all that code
would make the problem worse, not better.
- -Jeff
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIGiOrLPWxlyuTD7IRAh3jAKCFCrBa30G5WDwmJHI+Yb4fNAfu2QCfTUmq
Q6Sf0MVug2X0ywRcSrGi4eY=
=QwF9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jan Engelhardt
On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>>> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
>>>> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does not
>>>> have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU kernel is
>>>> not specific enough.
>>>
>>> I've been assuming the apparmor patches change remove_suid even when they are
>>> not enabled in the config.
>>
>> Lets get Kees involved. He developed the patch set for Hardy. I would
>> hope that if CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=n then the source would default to
>> its normal state.
>
>remove_suid() isn't the only change AppArmor makes to the VFS interface.
>It's pretty invasive and requires that dentries are passed with a
>companion vfsmount in most cases. Putting #ifdefs around all that code
>would make the problem worse, not better.
An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
with this Makefile
ifneq (${I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR},)
EXTRA_CFLAGS += -DHAZ_APPARMOR
endif
This works very well for kmp-rpms, which are tied to a specific
distro, sometimes kernel, anyway.
Chris Mason
> On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> >>>> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
> >>>> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does
> >>>> not have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU
> >>>> kernel is not specific enough.
> >>>
> >>> I've been assuming the apparmor patches change remove_suid even when
> >>> they are not enabled in the config.
> >>
> >> Lets get Kees involved. He developed the patch set for Hardy. I would
> >> hope that if CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=n then the source would default to
> >> its normal state.
> >
> >remove_suid() isn't the only change AppArmor makes to the VFS interface.
> >It's pretty invasive and requires that dentries are passed with a
> >companion vfsmount in most cases. Putting #ifdefs around all that code
> >would make the problem worse, not better.
>
> An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
>
> make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues), but I'd
prefer that people not have to know what apparmor is or if they have it.
(This isn't a knock on apparmor, I'd just rather take care of it
automagically).
-chris
Jan Engelhardt
On Friday 2008-05-02 14:52, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
>>
>> make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
>
>This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues), but I'd
>prefer that people not have to know what apparmor is or if they have it.
I guess iff people have a clue just what btrfs is and what it is good for
and why one would need it, I guess they also know of Apparmor.
If not, well, I hope you mentioned it in the INSTALL file!
Documentation on the most important things is always a good thing.
>(This isn't a knock on apparmor, I'd just rather take care of it
>automagically).
Well you could go down the conftest.sh route, but I dislike that
approach because such a Makefile system tries to be smarter than me;
and that often breaks because developers made a mess out of the
remaining Makefile and before long, it broke on odd, but
"standards-conforming", O= builds. (Fun stories with nvidia.)
Jan Engelhardt
On Friday 2008-05-02 14:52, Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>>
>> make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
M=$PWD
>This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues),
If it oopses, then you probably also get a compile-time warning on
that remove_suid line. And in that case, you can catch it with at least
a compile-time typecheck so as to not make the user head straight into
an oops, is not it?
Jeff Schroeder
> On Friday 02 May 2008, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > On Thursday 2008-05-01 22:10, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > >>>> Couldn't you #ifdef based on CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR ? This ought to
> > >>>> work for Hardy. However the next development kernel (Intrepid) does
> > >>>> not have the APPARMOR patches, so just knowing that its an UBUNTU
> > >>>> kernel is not specific enough.
> > >>>
> > >>> I've been assuming the apparmor patches change remove_suid even when
> > >>> they are not enabled in the config.
> > >>
> > >> Lets get Kees involved. He developed the patch set for Hardy. I would
> > >> hope that if CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=n then the source would default to
> > >> its normal state.
> > >
> > >remove_suid() isn't the only change AppArmor makes to the VFS interface.
> > >It's pretty invasive and requires that dentries are passed with a
> > >companion vfsmount in most cases. Putting #ifdefs around all that code
> > >would make the problem worse, not better.
> >
> > An alternative approach, and IMHO better suited, is to:
> >
> > make -C ${kdir} all I_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR=1
>
> This is better than the current situation (oops without any clues), but I'd
> prefer that people not have to know what apparmor is or if they have it.
> (This isn't a knock on apparmor, I'd just rather take care of it
> automagically).
Chris,
Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/patches/btrfs/lame_apparmor_test_for_btrfs.patch
The symlink from /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build ->
/path/to/kernel/headers/ doesn't exist on CentOS 5.
Even though it is a hack, is this or something like it usable? Or is
this the completely wrong direction?
--
Jeff Schroeder
Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix.
http://www.digitalprognosis.com
Jan Engelhardt
On Friday 2008-05-02 16:15, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
>
>Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
>exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
>Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
>succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
>
>http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/patches/btrfs/lame_apparmor_test_for_btrfs.patch
Woah, you rely on autoconf.h. Uh no thanks, let the build system handle it.
# -*- Makefile -*-
btrfs-objs := ...
obj-m += btrfs.o and-so-on.o
ifneq (${CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR},)
EXTRA_CFLAGS += -DI_HAZ_AN_APPARMOR
endif
all:
${MAKE} -C ${kdir} M=$PWD all;
Best of all, you can override that from the command line too...
make CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR=y
(and if you don't, it takes its value from the appropriate .config,
all without you having to care about autoconf.h)
Chris Mason
[ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
> Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
> succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
>
> http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/patches/btrfs/lame_apparmor_test
>_for_btrfs.patch
>
Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if
the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
/*
* Even if AppArmor isn't enabled, it still has different prototypes.
* Add more distro/version pairs here to declare which has AppArmor applied.
*/
#if defined(CONFIG_SUSE_KERNEL)
# if LINUX_VERSION_CODE >= KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,22)
# define REMOVE_SUID_PATH 1
# endif
#endif
Could someone from Ubuntu please suggest a replacement for CONFIG_SUSE_KERNEL
and KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,22) that would correspond with ubuntu kernels shipped
with apparmor? We don't need some define from the apparmor patch, just a
global flag that says it comes from ubuntu is enough.
-chris
Matthew Wilcox
> Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if
> the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
Do we really need to support kernels compiled with the apparmour patch
applied but not enabled? That would be a custom kernel build, and I get
the impression that people Just Don't Do That -- if they want a newer
kernel, they fetch one from kernel.org. Maybe I'm wrong though.
--
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
Chris Mason
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell
> > if the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
>
> Do we really need to support kernels compiled with the apparmour patch
> applied but not enabled? That would be a custom kernel build, and I get
> the impression that people Just Don't Do That -- if they want a newer
> kernel, they fetch one from kernel.org. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Yeah, if there's no better test I'll just use the one for the apparmor config
(and stop spamming l-k with this btrfs specific stuff).
-chris
Jan Engelhardt
On Friday 2008-05-02 16:38, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
>> Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell if
>> the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
>
>Do we really need to support kernels compiled with the apparmour patch
>applied but not enabled? That would be a custom kernel build, and I get
>the impression that people Just Don't Do That -- if they want a newer
>kernel, they fetch one from kernel.org. Maybe I'm wrong though.
I think so too. Corollary: if there is a distro that has apparmor
patched into its kernel, then there is [hopefully] a suitable rpm
nearby.
Tim Gardner
To the best of my knowledge, the AppArmor patches are arch and flavour
independent. If CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR exists, then the AA code is
compiled. This is certainly the case for Hardy. Neither Kees or myself
are aware of any reason why it won't also hold true for Intrepid.
rtg
--
Tim Gardner ti...@tpi.com www.tpi.com
OR 503-601-0234 x102 MT 406-443-5357
Chris Mason
> Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Friday 02 May 2008, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> >
> > [ Btrfs oops with apparmor patched in ]
> >
> >> Make is not my forte, but here is a working test to see if apparmor
> >> exists in Ubuntu 8.04.
> >> Maybe have make apply a patch to the btrfs source if this test
> >> succeeds? Does this work in SUSE?
> >>
> >> http://www.digitalprognosis.com/opensource/patches/btrfs/lame_apparmor_t
> >
> > Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell
> > if the kernel has the patch. Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
> >
I ended up using the CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR test because the other test
suggested here sounded like something that might eventually not be very
ubuntu specific (instead of the nice a plain CONFIG_SUSE_KERNEL).
Thanks to everyone for the hints, if someone could please test:
http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Hot_Fixes
I'd be grateful.