On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 10:08:04AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 03:57:35PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > There is a set checks for corruption in block map btrees in
> > process_bmbt_reclist_int that we identify but currently do not fix. It
> > appears that the author's intent in this function was to set error = 1,
> > and then only clear it when all of the checks were completed
> > successfully. Unfortunately error can be cleared when it is used for
> > the return value of blkmap_set_ext. Some kinds of corruption are not
> > being fixed, including duplicate extents, claiming free blocks, claiming
> > metadata blocks, and multiply used blocks.
> >
> > Fix this by shadowing error for blkmap_set_ext.
>
> Shadowing variables is not a very nice way of solving the problem.
> Someone will come along in a couple of years anf go "huh?" and
> remove the shadowed declaration because it makes no sense and has
> no comments explaining it.
>
> Better is to use a different variable name for this scope - say
> "error2" - or to reset error to a value of 1 after the call with a
> comment explaining it....
error2 it is. Sounds good.
|