On 1/31/17 2:09 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c >>> index 21e6a6a..2849d3f 100644 >>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c >>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_btree.c >>> @@ -810,7 +810,8 @@ xfs_btree_read_bufl( >>> xfs_daddr_t d; /* real disk block address */ >>> int error; >>> >>> - ASSERT(fsbno != NULLFSBLOCK); >>> + if (!XFS_FSB_SANITY_CHECK(mp, fsbno)) >>> + return -EFSCORRUPTED; >> This does away with the NULLFSBLOCK checks though, right? >> >> #define NULLFSBLOCK ((xfs_fsblock_t)-1) >> >> which is also used as an in-memory condition, so I'm not sure >> it should be added to XFS_FSB_SANITY_CHECK. > [reiterating our irc conversation] > > It shouldn't, since XFS_FSB_TO_AGNO(mp, NULLFSBLOCK) ought to produce > NULLAGNUMBER, which will still fail the check. Oh, sure. sorry for missing that. Looks ok after all. :) Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> IOWs some asserts about it are really code flow asserts, though >> it also shouldn't be read from disk. > xfs_btree_read_bufl is called by xfs_bmap_check_leaf_extents, which is > the verifier of the on-disk data. > > --D > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
