xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: be more forgiving of a v4 secondary sb w/ junk in

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: be more forgiving of a v4 secondary sb w/ junk in v5 fields
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 09:15:22 +1000
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <520D592D.4040600@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <520D1BA3.1050500@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130815210018.GR6023@dastard> <520D44E7.1000905@xxxxxxxxxxx> <520D592D.4040600@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:41:49PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Today, if xfs_sb_read_verify encounters a v4 superblock
> with junk past v4 fields which includes data in sb_crc,
> it will be treated as a failing checksum and significant
> corruption.
> 
> There are known prior bugs which leave junk at the end
> of the superblock; we don't need to actually fail the
> verification in this case if other checks pan out ok.
> 
> So if this is a secondary superblock, and the primary
> superblock is not V5, don't treat this as a serious
> checksum failure.
> 
> We should probably check the garbage condition as
> we do in xfs_repair, and possibly warn about it
> or self-heal, but that's a different scope of work.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---

Fine by me.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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