On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 02:18:52PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > 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? https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20191218041831.GK12765@magnolia/ > > 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. I dunno -- on the one hand, I understand that nobody wants to deal with the support calls that will erupt from that message. On the other hand, it's an indication that this filesystem isn't /quite/ the way we expected it to be, and that would be a helpful hint if you were debugging some other weird problem with an xfs filesystem. What if this were a do_log()? --D > > > > + 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, > >
