Re: [PATCH 1/1] XFS: xfs_iformat realtime device target pointer check

Felix Blyakher
2009-08-05T21:52:52Z

On Aug 4, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:

> Ramon de Carvalho Valle wrote:
>> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 14:11 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> Ramon de Carvalho Valle wrote:
>>>> The xfs_iformat function does not check if the realtime device
>>>> target pointer
>>>> is valid when the XFS_DIFLAG_REALTIME flag is set on the ondisk
>>>> inode
>>>> structure.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ramon de Carvalho Valle <ramon@risesecurity.org>
>>>> Cc: stable <stable@kernel.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>>>> 1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
>>>> index 1f22d65..37d3ee5 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
>>>> @@ -343,13 +343,24 @@ xfs_iformat(
>>>> return XFS_ERROR(EFSCORRUPTED);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + if (unlikely((ip->i_d.di_flags & XFS_DIFLAG_REALTIME) &&
>>>> + !ip->i_mount->m_rtdev_targp)) {
>>>> + xfs_fs_repair_cmn_err(CE_WARN, ip->i_mount,
>>>> + "corrupt dinode %Lu, flags = 0x%x.",
>>>> + (unsigned long long)ip->i_ino,
>>>> + ip->i_d.di_flags);
>>>> + XFS_CORRUPTION_ERROR("xfs_iformat(3)", XFS_ERRLEVEL_LOW,
>>>> + ip->i_mount, dip);
>>> I think I'd rather not change all the corruption text tag ordering;
>>> it'll make it harder to track down any common occurrences of
>>> "xfs_iformat(X)" corruption in the future if they get renumbered
>>> now.
>>>
>>> I'd either make this xfs_iformat(2.1) ;) or just leave it as
>>> Christoph
>>> had. "realtime" is a lot more informative than "3" anyway.
>>
>> I don't think this is a bad decision, because the corruption errors
>> can
>> be easily identified by the output of xfs_fs_repair_cmn_err and the
>> source line. I think this is a reasonable change that will keep the
>> code
>> clean and consistent.
>
> Until you wind up looking at a problem from some old kernel, or
> modified
> vendor kernel, and you realize that now you really don't know which
> error "xfs_iformat(6)" is anymore, and you either have to go digging
> through trees that aren't handy, or you just give up and don't
> bother to
> help because now it's too much of a pain. ;)
>
> But I can leave it up to the folks @ sgi, I can see both sides of the
> argument, and I won't care too much either way.

Agree with Eric, see the benefits of both approaches, but I think,
it'll be cleaner without shifting the numbering of all messages.
Otherwise, looks good.

Felix

>
>
> Thanks,
> -Eric
>
>> -Ramon
>>
>>> -Eric
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
> kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/