On Dec 13, 2007 20:36 -0600, Jose R. Santos wrote: > ... if the value in the super block is corrupted and > does not represent the actual flexbg size, the inode allocation will > behave in weird unexpected ways. Just as we check that the bitmaps are > within the block group range (when not using flexbg), we should > probably sanity check the size of the flexbg as reported in the super > block. > > Or do you believe the check is unnecessary? Well, I can imagine in some cases that the flexbg will not be completely contiguous on disk (e.g. after a filesystem resize, if there are bad blocks, etc). As long as the group descriptors themselves are correct (i.e. referencing valid bitmaps/itable) then it shouldn't cause a mount failure if the per-group data isn't strictly aligned according to the superblock flexbg count. We would need to validate the group descriptor separately though (e.g. group checksums). Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group Sun Microsystems of Canada, 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
