Re: [PATCH 09/12] btrfs: change set_level() to bound the level passed in

Dennis Zhou
2019-02-05T20:00:02Z

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 08:54:15PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 02:32:54PM -0500, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 08:06:37PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 03:20:05PM -0500, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > > > -unsigned int btrfs_compress_str2level(const char *str)
> > > > +unsigned int btrfs_compress_str2level(unsigned int type, const char *str)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (strncmp(str, "zlib", 4) != 0)
> > > > + unsigned int level;
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!type)
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > - /* Accepted form: zlib:1 up to zlib:9 and nothing left after the number */
> > > > - if (str[4] == ':' && '1' <= str[5] && str[5] <= '9' && str[6] == 0)
> > > > - return str[5] - '0';
> > > > + if (str[0] == ':') {
> > > > + ret = kstrtouint(str + 1, 10, &level);
> > >
> > > The docs kstrtouint of say that initial + is also accepted, I'd rather
> > > keep the level specification strict, ie. no "zlib:+3" and no garbage
> > > after the number.
> > >
> > > The validation is currently missing but I think we should catch levels
> > > out of range during mount/remount. The fallback to default is a safety
> > > but wrong specification should be communicated to the user early.
> >
> > Ok. To make sure I understand properly for improper level (ie "30",
> > "+3", "+3d") set the level to default (already done) and pr_warn saying
> > invalid level?
>
> So we have (at least) two ways how to handle:
>
> - warn and fail the mount -- catch typos and the like, continuing with
> default could cause problems later though not that severe as the
> compressionw would be different than expected, but this could be
> considered a usability bug
>
> - only warn and continue with the default -- not mounting a root
> filesystem just because of a typo can be worse than mounting with
> wrong level; as long as there's a warning in the log, the user still
> has a working system and can fix it manually
>
> Both have some pros and cons and initially I was more inclined to pick
> the 1st option, but now that I'm thinking about that again, the other
> has some merit.
>
> Given that zlib now falls back to default for unrecognized level, we
> should probably stick to that for zstd too.

Ok. With that I'll run a v3 adding a warning for a '+' or invalid input.

I think moving compression to being a property rather than a mount
option would be ideal. That would enable multiple compression levels per
mount and prevent remounting with incorrect mount options.

Thanks,
Dennis