From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/12] xfs: more and better verifiers
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:57:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170829165740.GT4757@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170829151159.GA12841@infradead.org>
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 08:11:59AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:13:33AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > So what do you think of the version that adds real printks for
> > each condition including more details like the one verifier I
> > did below? Probably needs some unlikely annotations, though.
>
> Given that there was another resend of the series I'd be really
> curious about the answer to this?
Oh! Sorry, I lost the thread and forgot to reply. :(
For debug kernels, I think it's definitely valuable to us to enhance the
corruption reports by printing out the expected value(s) and the
observed value so that we can pinpoint quickly exactly which test failed
and why.
I'm not as strongly convinced that it's worth it to put all those
strings into release builds and have to carry those around in memory.
Then again, on my rc7 dev build the strings only contribute about 120K
to a 1.4MB .ko file so it might not be a big deal.
I also think it would be useful for xfs_verifier_error to print more of
the corrupted buffer.
--D
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-29 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-17 23:31 [RFC 00/12] xfs: more and better verifiers Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:31 ` [PATCH 01/12] xfs: refactor long-format btree header verification routines Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:31 ` [PATCH 02/12] xfs: remove XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_RETURN from dir3 data verifiers Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:31 ` [PATCH 03/12] xfs: have buffer verifier functions report failing address Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-19 2:19 ` [PATCH v2 " Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:31 ` [PATCH 04/12] xfs: refactor verifier callers to print address of failing check Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 05/12] xfs: verify dinode header first Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 06/12] xfs: move inode fork verifiers to xfs_dinode_verify Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 07/12] xfs: create structure verifier function for shortform xattrs Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 08/12] xfs: create structure verifier function for short form symlinks Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 09/12] xfs: refactor short form directory structure verifier function Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 10/12] xfs: provide a centralized method for verifying inline fork data Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 11/12] xfs: fail out of xfs_attr3_leaf_lookup_int if it looks corrupt Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-17 23:32 ` [PATCH 12/12] xfs: create a new buf_ops pointer to verify structure metadata Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-18 7:05 ` [RFC 00/12] xfs: more and better verifiers Christoph Hellwig
2017-08-18 17:06 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-18 18:45 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-18 18:59 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-19 0:33 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-19 0:58 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-19 1:12 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-19 1:17 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-19 23:20 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-21 8:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-08-29 15:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-08-29 16:57 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2017-08-29 22:22 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-31 0:10 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-31 2:43 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-31 3:05 ` Eric Sandeen
2017-08-31 3:27 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-31 5:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2017-08-31 23:37 ` Dave Chinner
2017-08-31 23:49 ` Darrick J. Wong
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170829165740.GT4757@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox