On 7/25/18 2:33 PM, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> + /* Additional sb sanity checks for writes */
> + if (!error) {
> + if (sb.sb_fdblocks > sb.sb_dblocks ||
> + sb.sb_ifree > sb.sb_icount) {
> + xfs_notice(mp, "SB sanity check failed");
> + error = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> + }
> + }
I had kind of had it in my head that Dave suggested testing not
only sb_fdblocks & sb_ifree but also validating sb_icount against
sb_dblocks ... would that make sense? something like:
+ if (sb.sb_fdblocks > sb.sb_dblocks ||
+ sb.sb_icount / sb.sb_inopblock > sb.sb_dblocks) ||
+ sb.sb_ifree > sb.sb_icount) {
+ xfs_notice(mp, "SB sanity check failed");
because all 3 go into the statfs calculations which went wonky
in the original report? (xfs_sb_verify has done some sanity
checks on sb_inopblock by the time we get here.)
Also, a comment about why these checks are only for write, and are not
simply in xfs_mount_validate_sb() would be good, since that obviously
wasn't obvious to me at first. o_O :)
-Eric
--
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
