Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] XFS: xfs_iformat realtime device target pointer check | From | Ramon de Carvalho Valle <> | Date | Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:21:26 -0300 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 23:15 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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.
Yes, whatever they decide should be ok. Thanks for your feedback Eric.
-Ramon
> > Thanks, > -Eric > > > -Ramon > > > >> -Eric > > [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |