Bug 895727
| Summary: | btrfs quotas are easy to get into an inconsistent state | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Eric Hopper <eric-bugs2> | ||||
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Josef Bacik <josef> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED UPSTREAM | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | 18 | CC: | gansalmon, itamar, jonathan, josef, kernel-maint, madhu.chinakonda, mmahut, zab | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2013-09-23 20:28:40 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Eric Hopper
2013-01-15 21:19:25 UTC
This will likely need two fixes. First, according to sensille (aka Arne Jansen, owner of this development tree http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arne/linux-btrfs.git;a=summary) on Freenode, inconsistencies in the quota subsystem are not supposed to prevent mounting. Secondly, btrfs qgroup destroy leaves BTRFS_QGROUP_RELATION_KEY nodes lying around that refer to the destroyed qgroup. This should probably also be fixed. I have a patch which I think should fix the first problem, and I will attach it to this bug. Created attachment 679166 [details]
allow mounting of btrfs volumes with inconsistent quota information
This is a bug in btrfs, but at least part of it is within the kernel. I verified my patch as working, though I'm not sure that it's the best possible patch, it is a patch that works. (In reply to comment #4) > I verified my patch as working, though I'm not sure that it's the best > possible patch, it is a patch that works. Did you send this to the upstream developers? (In reply to comment #5) > Did you send this to the upstream developers? I sent the patch to the mailing list, yes. Fixed upstream. |