It's harmless to push to -stable, but online resize for ext4 is so badly broken that this patch is the least of 2.26.26's problems, and in fact I wonder how Josef could have possibly tested it.
Still, the patch in question does fix a real bug.
-Ted
------Original Message------
From: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: tytso@xxxxxxx
Cc: cmm@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: jbacik@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: adilger@xxxxxxx
Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Jun 9, 2008 7:49 PM
Subject: [patch (for 2.6.26?) 1/1] ext4: fix online resize bug
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxx>
There is a bug when we are trying to verify that the reserve inode's
double indirect blocks point back to the primary gdt blocks. The fix is
obvious, we need to mod the gdb count by the addr's per block. This was
verified using the same testcase as with the ext3 equivalent of this
patch.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Andreas Dilger <adilger@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ext4/resize.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN fs/ext4/resize.c~ext4-fix-online-resize-bug fs/ext4/resize.c
--- a/fs/ext4/resize.c~ext4-fix-online-resize-bug
+++ a/fs/ext4/resize.c
@@ -563,7 +563,8 @@ static int reserve_backup_gdb(handle_t *
}
blk = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_sbh->b_blocknr + 1 + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_gdb_count;
- data = (__le32 *)dind->b_data + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_gdb_count;
+ data = (__le32 *)dind->b_data + (EXT4_SB(sb)->s_gdb_count %
+ EXT4_ADDR_PER_BLOCK(sb));
end = (__le32 *)dind->b_data + EXT4_ADDR_PER_BLOCK(sb);
/* Get each reserved primary GDT block and verify it holds backups */
_
ÿôèº{.nÇ+?·?®??+%?Ëÿ±éݶ¥?wÿº{.nÇ+?·¥?{±ýìmãø§¶?¡Ü¨}©?²Æ zÚ&j:+v?¨þø ¯ù ®w¥þ?à2?Þ?¨èÚ&¢)ß¡«a¶Úÿÿûàz¿äz¹Þ?ú+?ù???Ý¢jÿ?wèþf
