xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: add more checks to superblock validation

To: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: add more checks to superblock validation
From: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 11:39:20 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20090418050544.GQ3709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1240002765-20279-1-git-send-email-felixb@xxxxxxx> <20090418050544.GQ3709@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Apr 18, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 04:12:45PM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote:
From: Olaf Weber <olaf@xxxxxxx>

There had been reports where xfs filesystem was randomly
corrupted with fsfuzzer, and xfs failed to handle it
gracefully. This patch fixes couple of reported problem
by providing additional checks in the superblock
validation routine.

Signed-off-by: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>

Since this patch is from Olaf, shouldn't he have a s-o-b line as well?

I was following the guidelines from the SubmittingPatches:

The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
and has the form:

        From: Original Author <author@xxxxxxxxxxx>

The "from" line specifies who will be credited as the author of the
patch in the permanent changelog.  If the "from" line is missing,
then the "From:" line from the email header will be used to determine
the patch author in the changelog.


So, is "From:" enough here, or "Signed-off-by" is needed as well?

Felix

I'm not really familiar with this part of the code...but it looks fine to
me.

Josef 'Jeff' Sipek.

--
Fact: 29.6% of all statistics are generated randomly.

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