Hi,
I don't know if your xattr patch was meant to fix this issue, but I have
just tested kernel 3.7-rc7 with your patch applied on another directory
having the problem and I still have the weird behaviour.
Thanks in advance,
David Arendt
On 11/26/12 03:54, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 09:15:06PM +0100, David Arendt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have made some more tests:
>>
>> ./testxattr /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> processing file /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> processing attribute system.posix_acl_default
>> lgetxattr failed: No data available
>>
>> getfattr /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> (no result)
>>
>> setfattr -x system.posix_acl_default
>> /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>>
>> testxattr /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> processing file /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> processing attribute system.posix_acl_access
>>
>> setfattr -x system.posix_acl_access
>> /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>>
>> ./testxattr /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> processing file /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>>
>> Now a test with a manually set attribute:
>>
>> setfattr -n user.testattribute -v testvalue
>> /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>>
>> getfattr /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> getfattr: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names
>> # file: u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> user.testattribute
>>
>> ./testxattr /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/smprocessing file
>> /u00/root.20121121.210102.full/var/lib/nfs/sm
>> processing attribute user.testattribute
>> value testvalue
> So another manually set attribute proves the code is right, that means
> the previous weird case is likely due to xattr metadata corruption somehow,
> it maybe name hash mismatch, or the xattr name len mismatch.
>
> thanks,
> liubo
>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> David Arendt
>>
>> On 11/24/12 04:39, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:09:16PM +0100, David Arendt wrote:
>>>> Well, this is only code to demonstrate the problem, the ; is normally a
>>>> silly mistake, but for my test case valuelen is < 0 so, the ; doesn't
>>>> change anything. With this corrected, the problem stays the same.
>>>>
>>>> On 11/23/12 21:43, Garry T. Williams wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, November 23, 2012 18:45:04 David Arendt wrote:
>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < attrslen; i+= strlen(&attrs[i]) + 1)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> printf("processing attribute %s\n", &attrs[i]);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> valuelen = lgetxattr(argv[1], &attrs[i], value, 1024);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (valuelen < 0);
>>>>> Hmmm ----------------^
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> Any dmesg output for this?
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> liubo
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
