| Message ID | 20170324150057.1752-1-christian.brauner@ubuntu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi guys, Friendly ping. Just checking in on this patch since I haven't heard back so far and this is a blocker in some scenarios where we're using btrfs. Thanks! Christian On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:00:57PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > The old check here tried to ensure that empty streams are not considered valid. > The old check however, will always fail when only one run through the while(1) > loop is needed and honor_end_cmd is set. So this: > > btrfs send /some/subvol | btrfs receive -e /some/ > > will consistently fail because -e causes honor_cmd_to be set and > btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream() to correctly return 1. So the command will > be successful but btrfs receive will error out because the send - receive > concluded in one run through the while(1) loop. > > If we want to exclude empty streams we need a way to tell the difference between > btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream() returning 1 because read_buf() did not > detect any data and read_and_process_cmd() returning 1 because honor_end_cmd was > set. Without introducing too many changes the best way to me seems to have > btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream() return -ENODATA in the first case. The rest > stays the same. We can then check for -ENODATA in do_receive() and report a > proper error in this case. This should also be backwards compatible to previous > versions of btrfs receive. They will fail on empty streams because a negative > value is returned. The only thing that they will lack is a nice error message. > > Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> > --- > cmds-receive.c | 13 +++++-------- > send-stream.c | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/cmds-receive.c b/cmds-receive.c > index 6cf22637..b59f00e4 100644 > --- a/cmds-receive.c > +++ b/cmds-receive.c > @@ -1091,7 +1091,6 @@ static int do_receive(struct btrfs_receive *rctx, const char *tomnt, > char *dest_dir_full_path; > char root_subvol_path[PATH_MAX]; > int end = 0; > - int count; > > dest_dir_full_path = realpath(tomnt, NULL); > if (!dest_dir_full_path) { > @@ -1186,7 +1185,6 @@ static int do_receive(struct btrfs_receive *rctx, const char *tomnt, > if (ret < 0) > goto out; > > - count = 0; > while (!end) { > if (rctx->cached_capabilities_len) { > if (g_verbose >= 3) > @@ -1200,16 +1198,15 @@ static int do_receive(struct btrfs_receive *rctx, const char *tomnt, > rctx, > rctx->honor_end_cmd, > max_errors); > - if (ret < 0) > - goto out; > - /* Empty stream is invalid */ > - if (ret && count == 0) { > + if (ret < 0 && ret == -ENODATA) { > + /* Empty stream is invalid */ > error("empty stream is not considered valid"); > ret = -EINVAL; > goto out; > + } else if (ret < 0) { > + goto out; > } > - count++; > - if (ret) > + if (ret > 0) > end = 1; > > close_inode_for_write(rctx); > diff --git a/send-stream.c b/send-stream.c > index 5a028cd9..78f2571a 100644 > --- a/send-stream.c > +++ b/send-stream.c > @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ int btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream(int fd, > if (ret < 0) > goto out; > if (ret) { > - ret = 1; > + ret = -ENODATA; > goto out; > } > > -- > 2.11.0 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 06:07:48PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > Hi guys, > > Friendly ping. Just checking in on this patch since I haven't heard back so far > and this is a blocker in some scenarios where we're using btrfs. the test misc/018-recv-end-of-stream fails after your patch, so this would need to be updated, other the patch looks good. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/cmds-receive.c b/cmds-receive.c index 6cf22637..b59f00e4 100644 --- a/cmds-receive.c +++ b/cmds-receive.c @@ -1091,7 +1091,6 @@ static int do_receive(struct btrfs_receive *rctx, const char *tomnt, char *dest_dir_full_path; char root_subvol_path[PATH_MAX]; int end = 0; - int count; dest_dir_full_path = realpath(tomnt, NULL); if (!dest_dir_full_path) { @@ -1186,7 +1185,6 @@ static int do_receive(struct btrfs_receive *rctx, const char *tomnt, if (ret < 0) goto out; - count = 0; while (!end) { if (rctx->cached_capabilities_len) { if (g_verbose >= 3) @@ -1200,16 +1198,15 @@ static int do_receive(struct btrfs_receive *rctx, const char *tomnt, rctx, rctx->honor_end_cmd, max_errors); - if (ret < 0) - goto out; - /* Empty stream is invalid */ - if (ret && count == 0) { + if (ret < 0 && ret == -ENODATA) { + /* Empty stream is invalid */ error("empty stream is not considered valid"); ret = -EINVAL; goto out; + } else if (ret < 0) { + goto out; } - count++; - if (ret) + if (ret > 0) end = 1; close_inode_for_write(rctx); diff --git a/send-stream.c b/send-stream.c index 5a028cd9..78f2571a 100644 --- a/send-stream.c +++ b/send-stream.c @@ -492,7 +492,7 @@ int btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream(int fd, if (ret < 0) goto out; if (ret) { - ret = 1; + ret = -ENODATA; goto out; }
The old check here tried to ensure that empty streams are not considered valid. The old check however, will always fail when only one run through the while(1) loop is needed and honor_end_cmd is set. So this: btrfs send /some/subvol | btrfs receive -e /some/ will consistently fail because -e causes honor_cmd_to be set and btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream() to correctly return 1. So the command will be successful but btrfs receive will error out because the send - receive concluded in one run through the while(1) loop. If we want to exclude empty streams we need a way to tell the difference between btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream() returning 1 because read_buf() did not detect any data and read_and_process_cmd() returning 1 because honor_end_cmd was set. Without introducing too many changes the best way to me seems to have btrfs_read_and_process_send_stream() return -ENODATA in the first case. The rest stays the same. We can then check for -ENODATA in do_receive() and report a proper error in this case. This should also be backwards compatible to previous versions of btrfs receive. They will fail on empty streams because a negative value is returned. The only thing that they will lack is a nice error message. Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> --- cmds-receive.c | 13 +++++-------- send-stream.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)