[PATCH, RFC] xfs_repair - clear inodes in incorrect btree format
Olaf Weber
olaf at sgi.com
Mon Jul 13 04:33:02 CDT 2009
Eric Sandeen writes:
[...]
> But questions remain...
> 1) How'd it get into this state? ... but maybe more importantly...
> 2) Should these really get cleared? It's possibly a sane extent list,
> it's just that it -could- be in extents rather than btree format...
> 3) By the same token, should the kernel really be choking on it?
It is not clear to me yet how you could get into this state, but this
is clearly an invariant the kernel actively maintains.
If the kernel "just" missed the underflow and kept the extents in
btree format, then I don't see an apriori reason why the extent list
as such would be invalid (as opposed to inefficiently stored). If
that's the primary model for getting into this state, then the file
contents can be rescued and kernel-side the event should be
survivable.
But if the kernel tried to convert, failed, and didn't properly detect
failure... Without having a good answer for (1) I find it hard to
convince myself that to be more forgiving wrt to (2) and (3) is safe.
Olaf
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen at sandeen.net>
Acked-By: Olaf Weber <olaf at sgi.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/repair/dinode.c b/repair/dinode.c
> index 84e1d05..3fc6cac 100644
> --- a/repair/dinode.c
> +++ b/repair/dinode.c
> @@ -1280,6 +1280,14 @@ process_btinode(
> last_key = cursor.level[level-1].first_key;
> }
> }
> + if (*nex <= XFS_DFORK_SIZE(dip, mp, whichfork) / sizeof(xfs_bmbt_rec_t)) {
> + do_warn(_("extent count for ino %lld %s fork too low "
> + "(%d) for file format\n"),
> + lino,
> + whichfork == XFS_DATA_FORK ? _("data") : _("attr"),
> + *nex);
> + return(1);
> + }
> /*
> * Check that the last child block's forward sibling pointer
> * is NULL.
--
Olaf Weber SGI Phone: +31(0)30-6696752
Veldzigt 2b Fax: +31(0)30-6696799
Technical Lead 3454 PW de Meern Vnet: 955-7151
Storage Software The Netherlands Email: olaf at sgi.com
More information about the xfs
mailing list