xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: don't shutdown log recovery on validation errors

To: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: don't shutdown log recovery on validation errors
From: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:17:24 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130614160940.GA32736@xxxxxxx>
References: <1371003548-4026-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1371003548-4026-2-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130613010441.GX20932@xxxxxxx> <20130613020827.GG29338@dastard> <20130613220903.GA20932@xxxxxxx> <20130614001306.GM29338@dastard> <20130614160940.GA32736@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:09:40AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:

 > > > I think your suggestion that non-debug systems could warn instead of
 > > > fail is a good one, but removing the verifier altogether is
 > > > inappropriate.
 > > 
 > > Changing every single verifier in a non-trivial way is not something
 > > I'm about to do for a -rc6 kernel. Removing the verifiers from log
 > > recovery just reverts to the pre-3.8 situation, so is perfectly
 > > acceptable short term solution while we do the more invasive verify
 > > changes.
 > > 
 > > > Can you make the metadump available?  I need to understand this better
 > > > before I can sign off.  Also:  Any idea how far back this one goes?
 > > 
 > > No, I can't make the metadump available to you - it was provided
 > > privately and not obfuscated and so you'd have to ask Dave for it.
 > 
 > Dave (Jones), could you make the metadump available to me?  I'd like to
 > understand this a little bit better.  I'm a bit uncomfortable with the
 > proposition that we should corrupt silently in this case...

Sorry, I don't have it any more.   I'll see if I can recreate the problem
next week and prepare another dump.

        Dave

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