xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] make growfs check device size limits too

To: Nathan Scott <nscott@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make growfs check device size limits too
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:16:23 +1000
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1177631120.6273.380.camel@edge>
References: <1177569014.6273.367.camel@edge> <20070426071055.GA24411@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1177631120.6273.380.camel@edge>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 09:45:20AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 08:10 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 04:30:14PM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > > On the mount path we check for a superblock that describes a filesystem
> > > to large for the running kernel to handle.  This catches the case of an
> > > attempt to mount a >16TB filesystem on i386 (where we are limited by the
> > > page->index size, for XFS metadata buffers in xfs_buf.c).
> > > 
> > > This patch makes similar checks on the growfs code paths for regular and
> > > realtime growth, else we can end up with filesystem corruption, it would
> > > seem (from #xfs chatter).  Untested patch follows; probably better to do
> > > this as a macro, in a header, and call that in each place...?
> > 
> > Yeah, the check should probably we in one place only.  Given that's it's
> > only used in slow pathes a function would probably do it.
> 
> Here's a revised version...

Added to my qa tree.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>