2008/9/22 Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Guys, I have a note here that this might be needed in 2.6.27. > > I also have a note that Stephen had issues with it, but I > don't recall what they were. Stephen suggested that it would be better to sanity check the journal start/end pointers on mount, rather than catching the error later like this. I never quite convinced myself I'd worked out the right way to do that, sorry. Perhaps someone would like to confirm (or otherwise) whether or not the following is correct: In journal_reset (?) check that: journal->j_first == 1 (this seems to be the only valid value) and journal->j_last >= JFS_MIN_JOURNAL_BLOCKS Additionally, it should be possible to check the journal->j_last more precisely. For internal journals it seems straight-forward, we can just check that journal->j_last == inode->i_size >> inode->i_sb->s_blocksize_bits. For external journals we'd need to load the device's superblock and check journal->j_last == s_blocks_count. > Can we get this sorted out please? If the above is confirmed I'll send a patch to that effect for jdb, jdb2 and for e2fsprogs (fsck doesn't check j_first/j_last either). Regardless, I think the original patch may be a good idea. It improves robustness and matches the other locations where we call jbd2_log_do_checkpoint. They are all in loops that test that journal->j_checkpoint_transactions != NULL. Cheers, Duane. -- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan -- 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
