On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 06:08:33PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Make sure we never check more than XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK inodes for any > given inobt record since there can be more than one inobt record mapped > to an inode cluster. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/xfs/scrub/ialloc.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/ialloc.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/ialloc.c > index 882dc56c5c21..fd431682db0b 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/ialloc.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/ialloc.c > @@ -203,7 +203,8 @@ xchk_iallocbt_check_freemask( > int error = 0; > > /* Make sure the freemask matches the inode records. */ > - nr_inodes = mp->m_inodes_per_cluster; > + nr_inodes = min_t(unsigned int, XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK, > + mp->m_inodes_per_cluster); Pardon me if this doesn't make sense, but, this looks like a good time to catch a possible corruption?! If mp->m_inodes_per_cluster is > XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK something is terribly wrong and we could report it here instead of max it out to XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK, but I haven't studied the scrub code that deep yet to see if my suggestion makes sense or not :) > > for (agino = irec->ir_startino; > agino < irec->ir_startino + XFS_INODES_PER_CHUNK; > -- Carlos
