FYI, just sent out "[PATCH] xfstests: Teste root inode parent pointer repairing" On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Marco Benatto <mbenatto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:20:56PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 6/14/18 5:16 PM, Marco Benatto wrote: >>> > Currently when root inode is in short-form and its parent ino >>> > has an invalid value, process_sf_dir2() ends up not fixing it, >>> > because if verify_inum() fails we never get to the next case which >>> > would fix the root inode's parent pointer. >>> > >>> > This behavior triggers the following assert on process_dir2(): >>> > >>> > ASSERT((ino != mp->m_sb.sb_rootino && ino != *parent) || >>> > (ino == mp->m_sb.sb_rootino && >>> > (ino == *parent || need_root_dotdot == 1))); >>> > >>> > This patch fixes this behavior by making sure we always properly >>> > handle rootino parent pointer in process_sf_dir2() >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: Marco Benatto <mbenatto@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> This looks correct to me, thanks. >>> >>> FWIW the problem can be demonstrated by setting the root inode's >>> parent to 0 on a freshly made fs: >>> >>> # mkfs.xfs -f -dfile,name=fsfile,size=1g >>> # xfs_db -x -c "sb 0" -c "addr rootino" -c "write u3.sfdir3.hdr.parent.i4 0" fsfile >>> # xfs_repair fsfile >> >> xfstest please (also to check that xfs_scrub detects it)? > > Sure, working on this. I'll send you once it's done. > >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave. >> -- >> Dave Chinner >> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Cheers, > > -- > Marco Benatto -- Marco Benatto Senior Software Maintenance Engineer | Red Hat Brasil T: +55 11 35246161 | M: +55 41 9 88504051 Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima 3900, 8° Andar. São Paulo, Brasil. RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. Saiba porque em redhat.com -- 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
