On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 08:42:14PM +0800, Eryu Guan wrote: > On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 02:47:23PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > A directory corrupted into a symlink will be caught by the upcoming > > local format ifork verifiers. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > tests/xfs/348.out | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/xfs/348.out b/tests/xfs/348.out > > index f4a7a71..17d9be2 100644 > > --- a/tests/xfs/348.out > > +++ b/tests/xfs/348.out > > @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ would have junked entry "DATA" in directory PARENT_INO > > would have junked entry "DIR" in directory PARENT_INO > > would have junked entry "EMPTY" in directory PARENT_INO > > would have junked entry "FIFO" in directory PARENT_INO > > -stat: 'SCRATCH_MNT/test/DIR' is a symbolic link > > +stat: cannot stat 'SCRATCH_MNT/test/DIR': Structure needs cleaning > > But this breaks tests on old kernels. Or with the new ifork verifiers, > old kernels can be considered as buggy? Yes, they're buggy since we shouldn't be interpreting directory entries as a link target given that the zero bytes in the "link target" will screw things up. --D > Thanks, > Eryu > > > stat: 'SCRATCH_MNT/test/DATA' is a symbolic link > > stat: cannot stat 'SCRATCH_MNT/test/EMPTY': Structure needs cleaning > > stat: 'SCRATCH_MNT/test/SYMLINK' is a symbolic link > > > -- > 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 -- 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
