xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_repair segfaults

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_repair segfaults
From: Ole Tange <tange@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:41:25 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=z/o7Q+cXpH1EPDjBUw3U+MZ5/s4FxLqu/4FIyEiNisE=; b=UkFcdT7jQlz/ImiGl/fo04G19t4+nRjYbPMIkPNAK6PQ/iAuyeoxMKQc2riXupk1wJ Up3IIp/fMTA2IIE3CaG/UCc/iYUGZVz0LcVTUjSIQtmd5aGEaSw7Q8mkNFmzpdEPU6CL S1zYp+7t6tjKqd75qK+4ooj2bKe1uVT4GubRx4F/icyVCU+xQB4UkQKZlURhCQiCyPeh 1rCuuX6V/yRKn//sX+pdRZy+1je+kH7bGYk/rQXZd+CTmZvd8oWCHeBnQ25mGmYJ5mnh F/Yx0zX5MwPEZJz0Yi9BjfFDLUzphih3QkE2pYLAa3hMl5++ilBaKUi3yShWm48XcbCd 8BvA==
In-reply-to: <513A4AEC.4010202@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CANU9nTnvJS50vdQv2K0gKHZPvzzH5EY1qpizJNsqUobrr2juDA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <512FA67D.2090708@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CANU9nTm3vR3Z5JwRwou4vnNejstAkAsnBb2ivwx-KhnHHbWpoQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5130DB54.9030503@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CANU9nTkekrw2mdptFdK2RVUFXD=evt0sTZhB9VL+PKY8DTj11A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5134BBA4.3060305@xxxxxxxxxxx> <CANU9nTntXh5spRYc80OhsBqgLnZcJGA2qBeVVQaywthD1RMu4w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <513A4AEC.4010202@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: ole.tange.work@xxxxxxxxx
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/8/13 4:21 AM, Ole Tange wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> 2) so you could run a "real" non-"n" xfs_repair on a metadata image as a 
>>> more realistic dry run
:
>> I get
>> filenames like:
>>
>> /mnt/disk/??5?z+hEOgl/?7?Psr1?aIH<?ip:??/>S??+??z=ozK/8_0/???d)
>> 5JCG?eiBd?EVsNF'A?v?m?f;Fi6v)d>/?M%?A??J?)B<soGlc??QuY!e-<,6G?
>> X[Df?Wm^[?f 4|
>
> By default, xfs_metadump scrambles filenames, so nothing to worry
> about (it's for privacy reasons).  If you use the "-o" option it'll keep
> it in the clear.

Ahh. To me that does not conform to Principle of Least Astonishment -
especially since some of the filenames were not obfuscated.

I would have been less surprised if the files were named:

    Use_-o_for_real_file_names_XXXXXXXX
    Use_-o_for_real_dir_names_XXXXXXXX

where XXXXXXXX is just a unique number.


/Ole

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