On 1/23/20 6:17 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> If sb_rootino doesn't point to where we think mkfs should have allocated
> the root directory, check to see if the alleged root directory actually
> looks like a root directory. If so, we'll let it live because someone
> could have changed sunit since formatting time, and that changes the
> root directory inode estimate.
I forget, is there an fstest for this?
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
> @@ -438,6 +469,20 @@ calc_mkfs(
>
> rootino = libxfs_ialloc_calc_rootino(mp, mp->m_sb.sb_unit);
>
> + /*
> + * If the root inode isn't where we think it is, check its plausibility
> + * as a root directory. It's possible that somebody changed sunit
> + * since the filesystem was created, which can change the value of the
> + * above computation. Don't blow up the root directory if this is the
> + * case.
> + */
> + if (mp->m_sb.sb_rootino != rootino && has_plausible_rootdir(mp)) {
> + do_warn(
> +_("sb root inode value %" PRIu64 " inconsistent with alignment (expected %"PRIu64")\n"),
> + mp->m_sb.sb_rootino, rootino);
what would a user do with this warning? Is there any value in emitting it?
Otherwise this looks good.
> + rootino = mp->m_sb.sb_rootino;
> + }
> +
> ensure_fixed_ino(&mp->m_sb.sb_rootino, rootino,
> _("root"));
> ensure_fixed_ino(&mp->m_sb.sb_rbmino, rootino + 1,
>
