From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n2GAnomX085944 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 05:50:09 -0500 Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 3A3C019C76F for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id v2MxxlNosPjFkbFQ for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:49:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:49:04 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] [XFS] Validate log feature fields correctly Message-ID: <20090316104904.GK26138@disturbed> References: <1237116342-25701-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1237116342-25701-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20090315151546.GB7145@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090315151546.GB7145@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:15:51AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:25:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > If the large log sector size feature bit is set in the > > superblock by accident (say disk corruption), the then > > fields that are now considered valid are not checked on > > production kernels. The checks are present as ASSERT > > statements so cause a panic on a debug kernel. > > > > Change this so that the fields are validity checked if > > the feature bit is set and abort the log mount if the > > fields do not contain valid values. > > > > Reported-by: Eric Sesterhenn > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > > Looks good to me, but wouldn't be easier to rad if the various sizes > in the error messages were reported decimal instead of in hex? I just find large numbers easier to parse in hex, especially as we are expecting power-of-2 type numbers to come out of this. I'll change it.... > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > } /* xlog_alloc_log */ > > any maybe remove this comment while you're at it? Ok. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs