Re: [PATCH 4/6] xfs: fix zero byte checking in the superblock scrubber

Christoph Hellwig
2024-12-05T06:48:39Z

On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 09:54:51PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > This really should be libxfs so tht it can be shared with
> > secondary_sb_whack in xfsrepair. The comment at the end of
> > the xfs_dsb definition should also be changed to point to this
> > libxfs version.
>
> The xfs_repair version of this is subtlely different -- given a
> secondary ondisk superblock, it figures out the size of the ondisk
> superblock given the features set *in that alleged superblock*. From
> there it validates the secondary superblock. The featureset in the
> alleged superblock doesn't even have to match the primary super, but
> it'll go zero things all the same before copying the incore super back
> to disk:
>
> if (xfs_sb_version_hasmetadir(sb))
> size = offsetofend(struct xfs_dsb, sb_pad);
> else if (xfs_sb_version_hasmetauuid(sb))
> size = offsetofend(struct xfs_dsb, sb_meta_uuid);
>
> This version in online computes the size of the secondary ondisk
> superblock object given the features set in the *primary* superblock
> that we used to mount the filesystem.

Well, it considers the size for the passed in superblock. Where the
passed in one happens to be the primary one and the usage is for the
second.

> Also if I did that we'd have to recopy the xfs_sb_version_hasXXXX
> functions back into libxfs after ripping most of them out. Or we'd have
> to encode the logic manually. But even then, the xfs_repair and
> xfs_scrub functions are /not quite/ switching on the same thing.

We don't really need the helpers and could just check the flag vs
the field directly.

I'd personally prefer to share this code, but I also don't want to
hold off the fix for it. So if you prefer to stick to this
version maybe just clearly document why these two are different
with a comment that has the above information?