[Top] [All Lists]

Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories

To: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: REVIEW: xfs_repair fixes for bad directories
From: "Barry Naujok" <bnaujok@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:33:50 +1000
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20080826193205.GA31105@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: SGI
References: <op.udlsirmx3jf8g2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20080826193205.GA31105@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Opera Mail/9.51 (Win32)
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 05:32:05 +1000, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 06:00:17PM +1000, Barry Naujok wrote:
Two issues have been encounted with xfs_repair and badly corrupted

1. A huge size (inode di_size) can cause malloc which will fail.
   Patch dir_size_check.patch checks for a valid directory size
   and if it's bad, junks the directory. The di_size for a dir
   only counts the data blocks being used, not all the other
   associated metadata. This is limited to 32GB by the
   XFS_DIR2_LEAF_OFFSET value in XFS. Anything greater than this
   must be invalid.

As menioned before this one is trivial nad makes sens.

2. An update a while ago to xfs_repair attempts to fix invalid
   ".." entries for subdirectories where there is a valid parent
   with the appropriate entry. It was a partial fix that never
   did the full job, especially if the subdirectory was short-
   form or it has already been processed.

   Patch fix_dir_rebuild_without_dotdot_entry.patch creates a
   post-processing queue after the main scan to update any
   directories with an invalid ".." entry.

Where is the existing attemp?  I can't find code doing anything like
that removed in the patch.  But the actual patch looks good, while
I had this mess with the tons of different boolean flags in repair
converting these to a more descriptive bitmask should be a different

Both these patches sit on top of the dinode.patch that has been
posted out for review previously.

But you didn't get a review for it, did you?  Looked over it briefly
and it looks good to m.  Again the new code is much much mor readable.

Yeah, Chandan did a good review a while ago and has been checked in now.

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