On Sun 18-02-24 10:16:40, Zhang Yi wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 2024/2/13 18:15, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Currently we ignore s_clusters_per_group field in the on-disk superblock
> > if bigalloc feature is not enabled. However e2fsprogs don't even open
> > the filesystem is s_clusters_per_group is invalid. This results in an
> ^^
> if
> > odd state where kernel happily works with the filesystem while even
> > e2fsck refuses to touch it. Verify that s_clusters_per_group is valid
> > even if bigalloc feature is not enabled to make things consistent. Due
> > to current e2fsprogs behavior it is unlikely there are filesystems out
> > in the wild (except for intentionally fuzzed ones) with invalid
> > s_clusters_per_group counts.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/super.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index 0f931d0c227d..522683075067 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -4451,7 +4451,15 @@ static int ext4_handle_clustersize(struct super_block *sb)
> > sbi->s_blocks_per_group);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > - sbi->s_clusters_per_group = sbi->s_blocks_per_group;
> > + sbi->s_clusters_per_group =
> > + le32_to_cpu(es->s_clusters_per_group);
> > + if (sbi->s_blocks_per_group != sbi->s_clusters_per_group) {
> > + ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "blocks per group (%lu) and "
> > + "clusters per group (%lu) inconsistent",
> > + sbi->s_blocks_per_group,
> > + sbi->s_clusters_per_group);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
>
> This is almost the same with the code snippet in bigalloc branch, would
> it be better to factor them out and reuse this hunk in both branch, just
> like the check e2fsprogs does?
Yeah, good point. Let me send v2.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
