On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 05:56:27PM +0100, Duane Griffin wrote:
> 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
Yes, for all existing currently created, j_first will be 1. I can't
think of a good reason for why we might want to reserve some space at
the beginning of the journal, but the safest check would be:
(journal->j_last - journal->j_first +1) >= 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.
Yep, agreed.
> 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.
Agreed. I've included it in the ext4 patch queue, and will be soon
putting out a new ext4 patchset consisting of the patches I plan to
push during the next merge window.
- Ted
--
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
