Andreas Dilger wrote: > On Sep 10, 2009 11:02 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> This patch limits such allocations to < 232, and adds >> WARN_ONs (maybe should be BUG_ONs) if we do get blocks >> larger than that. > > Given that this may corrupt the filesystem (e.g. block > 2^32 turning into block 0 and overwriting the superblock) > I think a BUG_ON() is probably more appropriate. This > should only happen with software bugs, so it is more > appropriate than ext4_error() I think. Ok, fine by me. I can send an update. Any suggestions on the naming issues? (what's the official name for a "not-extent-based-file?") I ran it a lot through a mkfs/mount/fsstress/unmount/fsck cycle, and all seemed well. mkfs was without extents, so I was thinking we were in good shape. However, Ric just ran a massive fs_mark test on a 60T filesystem that he created with "mke2fs" (no extents and no journal - accidentally) and we got no corruption even without this patch. I need to see if a filesystem w/o the extents feature (at all, vs. some old-format files on an extents fs) never even tries to allocate past 2^32; I didn't think so, but now not so sure. I probably need to do more testing ... -Eric -- 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
