lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] XFS: xfs_iformat realtime device target pointer check
    Ramon de Carvalho Valle wrote:
    > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 14:11 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
    >> Ramon de Carvalho Valle wrote:
    >>> The xfs_iformat function does not check if the realtime device target pointer
    >>> is valid when the XFS_DIFLAG_REALTIME flag is set on the ondisk inode
    >>> structure.
    >>>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
    >>> Signed-off-by: Ramon de Carvalho Valle <ramon@risesecurity.org>
    >>> Cc: stable <stable@kernel.org>
    >>> ---
    >>> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
    >>> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
    >>>
    >>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
    >>> index 1f22d65..37d3ee5 100644
    >>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
    >>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
    >>> @@ -343,13 +343,24 @@ xfs_iformat(
    >>> return XFS_ERROR(EFSCORRUPTED);
    >>> }
    >>>
    >>> + if (unlikely((ip->i_d.di_flags & XFS_DIFLAG_REALTIME) &&
    >>> + !ip->i_mount->m_rtdev_targp)) {
    >>> + xfs_fs_repair_cmn_err(CE_WARN, ip->i_mount,
    >>> + "corrupt dinode %Lu, flags = 0x%x.",
    >>> + (unsigned long long)ip->i_ino,
    >>> + ip->i_d.di_flags);
    >>> + XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR("xfs_iformat(3)", XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
    >>> + ip->i_mount, dip);
    >> I think I'd rather not change all the corruption text tag ordering;
    >> it'll make it harder to track down any common occurrences of
    >> "xfs_iformat(X)" corruption in the future if they get renumbered now.
    >>
    >> I'd either make this xfs_iformat(2.1) ;) or just leave it as Christoph
    >> had. "realtime" is a lot more informative than "3" anyway.
    >
    > I don't think this is a bad decision, because the corruption errors can
    > be easily identified by the output of xfs_fs_repair_cmn_err and the
    > source line. I think this is a reasonable change that will keep the code
    > clean and consistent.

    Until you wind up looking at a problem from some old kernel, or modified
    vendor kernel, and you realize that now you really don't know which
    error "xfs_iformat(6)" is anymore, and you either have to go digging
    through trees that aren't handy, or you just give up and don't bother to
    help because now it's too much of a pain. ;)

    But I can leave it up to the folks @ sgi, I can see both sides of the
    argument, and I won't care too much either way.

    Thanks,
    -Eric

    > -Ramon
    >
    >> -Eric




    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-05 06:17    [W:0.026 / U:60.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site