similar to: Filter when using --xattrs?

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10925 Bug ID: 10925 Summary: non-atomic xattr replacement in btrfs => rsync --read-batch random errors Product: rsync Version: 3.1.0 Hardware: All URL: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs /40013 OS: All

Hello, This is the little basic program I used to test xattrs. First thing I did was something like this cd /mnt/btrfs-test for i in $(seq 0 100000); do touch file_$i; done and then run time ./xattr-test /mnt/btrfs 0 time ./xattr-test /mnt/btrfs 1 time ./xattr-test /mnt/btrfs 2 the 0 test creates 100 xattrs for every file in the directory. the 1 test just does a listxattr for every file in

I see that rsync will eventually support extended attributes, which will be great. But: will it allow backup from a file system that supports xattrs, to one that does not? For this to work, rsync would have to represent the xattrs on the destination machine in some special format, I suppose, which is outside the usual rsync mode of operation. Moreover, even if both machines support

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26?AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19?AM Roberto Sassu > > > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > > > From: Roberto Sassu

On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 17:39 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 9:26?AM Roberto Sassu > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-03-24 at 11:18 +0100, Roberto Sassu wrote: > > > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19?AM Roberto Sassu > > > > <roberto.sassu at

Currently, when listing xattrs, kernel define XATTR_LIST_MAX as 65536 in include/linux/limits.h, so it can't handle too many xattrs. But with ocfs2 xattr tree, we actually have no limit for the number. And it will pollute the message with something like this when listing. (27738,0):ocfs2_iterate_xattr_buckets:3158 ERROR: status = -34 (27738,0):ocfs2_xattr_tree_list_index_block:3264 ERROR:

From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com> One of the major goals of LSM stacking is to run multiple LSMs side by side without interfering with each other. The ultimate decision will depend on individual LSM decision. Several changes need to be made to the LSM infrastructure to be able to support that. This patch set tackles one of them: gives to each LSM the ability to specify one

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 6:18?AM Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2023-03-23 at 20:09 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 4:19?AM Roberto Sassu > > <roberto.sassu at huaweicloud.com> wrote: > > > From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com> > > > > > > Currently,

I recently found a bug in the xattrs patch, where it would apply the wrong xattrs to some files in a transfer. While looking at the code, I think I found another one (it sure looks wrong, but I haven't figured out how to demonstrate it yet). Anyway, here's the patch: The first hunk fixes the apparent bug. The second hunk fixes the demonstratable bug. I haven't (yet) looked to see

Currently compression and I assume if encryption is implemented it is turned on or off during mount. There are however many times when a user may want to select which files/directories they want to compress or encrypt. This will also be helpful when implementing btrfs support in grub for example. We can say the disk can be compressed/encrypted except for /boot so compression/encryption

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5324 Summary: with option --xattrs the process rsync is more long time Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: fauthier@free.fr

The security.evm extended attribute is fully owned by the Linux kernel and cannot be directly written from userspace. Therefore, we can always skip it. --- xattrs.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/xattrs.c b/xattrs.c index b105392..3b72e61 100644 --- a/xattrs.c +++ b/xattrs.c @@ -255,6 +255,9 @@ static int rsync_xal_get(const char *fname,

On 01/06/2017 12:27 AM, L. A. Walsh wrote: > Stefan Berger wrote: >> The security.evm extended attribute is fully owned by the Linux kernel >> and cannot be directly written from userspace. Therefore, we can always >> skip it. > --- (see below "...")... > > Please put this on a switch or option. > > The security.evm field seems only special on

From: Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu at huawei.com> One of the major goals of LSM stacking is to run multiple LSMs side by side without interfering with each other. The ultimate decision will depend on individual LSM decision. Several changes need to be made to the LSM infrastructure to be able to support that. This patch set tackles one of them: gives to each LSM the ability to specify one

Hi, I am using kernel 3.7-rc6. I have written a test application for extended attributes and have for some folders a wired behaviour: #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <attr/xattr.h> char attrs[1024]; ssize_t attrslen; int i; char value[1024]; ssize_t valuelen; int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { if (argc != 2) { fprintf(stderr, "Syntax: testxattr

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5365 Summary: --backup and --xattrs are not compatible Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: fauthier@free.fr

I am using the latest 3.0.0cvs protocol version 30 Capabilities: 64- bit files, 32-bit system inums, 64-bit internal inums, socketpairs, hardlinks, symlinks, IPv6, batchfiles, inplace, append, no ACLs, xattrs xattrs cvs 1.77 I installed xattr for Mac OSX Senario: $ mkdir /Users/alan/Desktop/folder1 $ echo 'Hello' > /Users/alan/Desktop/folder1/file1 $ xattr --set color blue

On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:10:52AM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote: > However, a few filesystems still rely on the ->list() method of the > generix POSIX ACL xattr handlers in their ->listxattr() inode operation. > This is a very limited set of filesystems. For most of them there is no > dependence on the generic POSIX ACL xattr handler in any way. > > In addition, during

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5298 Summary: xattrs and acls do not work well together along with fake-super, even worse on XFS Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo:

Hi all, This is an alternative approach to atomic user transactions for btrfs. The old start/end ioctls suffer from some basic limitations, namely - We can''t properly reserve space ahead of time to avoid ENOSPC part way through the transaction, and - The process may die (seg fault, SIGKILL) part way through the transaction. Currently when that happens the partial transaction will