On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 6:09:29 PM IST Carlos Maiolino wrote: > 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 :) With 64k block size, we would have 128 inodes per cluster i.e. more than one chunk can be accommodated within a cluster. -- chandan
