David Chinner wrote:
> There is a bug in mkfs.xfs that can result in writing the features2
> field in the superblock to the wrong location. This only occurs
> on some architectures, typically those with 32 bit userspace and
> 64 bit kernels.
>
> This patch detects the defect at mount time, logs a warning
> such as:
>
> XFS: correcting sb_features alignment problem
>
> in dmesg and corrects the problem so that everything is OK.
> it also blacklists the bad field in the superblock so it does
> not get used for something else later on.
...
> /*
> + * Check for a bad features2 field alignment. This happened on
> + * some platforms due to xfs_sb_t not being 64bit size aligned
> + * when sb_features was added and hence the compiler put it in
> + * the wrong place.
> + *
> + * If we detect a bad field, we or the set bits into the existing
> + * features2 field in case it has already been modified and we
> + * don't want to lose any features. Zero the bad one and mark
> + * the two fields as needing updates once the transaction subsystem
> + * is online.
> + */
> + if (xfs_sb_has_bad_features2(sbp)) {
> + cmn_err(CE_WARN,
> + "XFS: correcting sb_features alignment problem");
> + sbp->sb_features2 |= sbp->sb_bad_features2;
> + sbp->sb_bad_features2 = 0;
> + update_flags |= XFS_SB_FEATURES2 | XFS_SB_BAD_FEATURES2;
> + }
Hm, the other problem here may be that if we zero bad_features2, then
any older kernel will mount up as attr2... and run into the corruption
problem I found on F8...
Should we make features2 and bad_features2 match rather than zeroing
bad_features2?
-Eric
|