From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2A27F3F for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:17:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:17:11 -0500 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs: be more forgiving of a v4 secondary sb w/ junk in v5 fields Message-ID: <20131017201711.GJ1935@sgi.com> References: <520D1BA3.1050500@redhat.com> <20130815210018.GR6023@dastard> <520D44E7.1000905@sandeen.net> <520D592D.4040600@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <520D592D.4040600@redhat.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: "'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com'" , Eric Sandeen On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:41:49PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Today, if xfs_sb_read_verify encounters a v4 superblock > with junk past v4 fields which includes data in sb_crc, > it will be treated as a failing checksum and significant > corruption. > > There are known prior bugs which leave junk at the end > of the superblock; we don't need to actually fail the > verification in this case if other checks pan out ok. > > So if this is a secondary superblock, and the primary > superblock is not V5, don't treat this as a serious > checksum failure. > > We should probably check the garbage condition as > we do in xfs_repair, and possibly warn about it > or self-heal, but that's a different scope of work. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen Eric... is the one you're talking about? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs