On Nov 14, 2006 13:38 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Andreas Dilger wrote: > > It would make sense to fix ext2 in the same way. > > I'd suggest bailing out "early" == min(i_size >> blocksize, i_blocks). > > The i_blocks count is an upper limit, because it includes the overhead of > > indirect blocks. Directories cannot be sparse. > > so we could either a) keep processing pages based on i_size, until we > have passed i_blocks, or b) if i_size & i_blocks don't match, > immediately bail out because we know we have found a corrupted inode > (vs. a "normal" unreadable block...) Do we already ext3_error() in this case? That allows the admin to determine the behaviour already. If it is errors=continue or errors=remount-ro then we should continue I think. We might consider the inode fatally corrupted if (i_blocks << 9 < i_size || i_blocks > i_size >> (blockbits - 8) + /* blocks */ i_size >> (blockbits * 2 - 8 - 2) + /* indirect */ i_size >> (blockbits * 3 - 8 - 2) + /* dindirect */ i_size >> (blockbits * 4 - 8 - 2)) /* tindirect */ I think... Trying to account for indirect blocks. It is already given a 100% margin (-8 instead of -9) to cover rounding, EA blocks, some small bugs in block counting, extents format, etc. FYI, the "-2" is 4 bytes/addr. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
