Re: [bug] btrfs check --subvol-extents segfault

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>]

Ping.

No response?

Thanks,
Qu
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bug] btrfs check --subvol-extents segfault
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>, Btrfs BTRFS 
<linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Date: 2014年09月17日 05:34
> On 9/16/14 4:33 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142421
>>
>> kernel-3.17.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc22.x86_64
>> btrfs-progs-3.16-1.fc21.x86_64
>>
>> Steps to Reproduce:
>> 1. mkfs.btrfs /dev/sdc
>> 2. btrfs check --subvol-extents /dev/sdc
>>
>> Results:
>> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>>
>> [  632.749774] btrfs[692]: segfault at 0 ip 00007fc9963fdd77 sp 00007fff93450880 error 4 in libc-2.19.90.so[7fc9963c2000+1bd000]
>>
>> Eric Sandeed writes in the bugzilla that this was broken by commit
>> d34cbe76c723a05a14bbcfdc46e8ede789c3f1f9 which drops the requirement
>> to specify a subvolid, but still does arg_strtou64(optarg) ->
>> arg_strtou64(NULL) so it crashes.
> Yeah, AFAICT (although it's not documented anywhere) the functionality is
> *supposed* to take a subvolid as an argument.
>
> The commit lets it pass w/ no args, but still does arg_strtou64(optarg) to get
> the subvolid, and boom.
>
> I think the commit just needs to be reverted, and then manpages updated &
> testcases written...
>
> -Eric
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html