xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: be more forgiving of a v4 secondary sb w/ junk in v5

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: be more forgiving of a v4 secondary sb w/ junk in v5 fields
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:51:58 -0500
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <522E3099.1040503@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <520D1BA3.1050500@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130815210018.GR6023@dastard> <520D44E7.1000905@xxxxxxxxxxx> <520D592D.4040600@xxxxxxxxxx> <522E3099.1040503@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey Eric,

On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:33:29PM -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 a significant
> corruption.
> 
> There are known prior bugs which leave junk at the end
> of the V4 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 doesn't indicate that this is a V5 filesystem,
> don't treat this as an actual 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.
> 
> Stable folks: This can go back to v3.10, which is what
> introduced the sb CRC checking that is tripped up by old,
> stale, incorrect V4 superblocks w/ unzeroed bits.
> 
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

Applied this one.  Thanks.

-Ben

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [PATCH V2] xfs: be more forgiving of a v4 secondary sb w/ junk in v5 fields, Ben Myers <=