Re: [PATCH 1/1] XFS: xfs_iformat realtime device target pointer check

[Felix Blyakher]

On Aug 4, 2009, at 11:15 PM, 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ramon de Carvalho Valle <ramon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > 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.

Agree with Eric, see the benefits of both approaches, but I think,
it'll be cleaner without shifting the numbering of all messages.
Otherwise, looks good.

Felix

> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
> > -Ramon
> >
> > > -Eric
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux- 
> kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/