On 2/11/20 4:11 AM, John Jore wrote:
> Hi and thanks for this one.
>
> Ran it twice. No errors were found on the second run.
>
> Let me know if you need a dump or anything for validation purposes?
Nah it's all good, thanks for the report.
-Eric
>
> John
>
> ---
> From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 11 February 2020 02:42
> To: linux-xfs
> Cc: John Jore
> Subject: [PATCH] xfs_repair: fix bad next_unlinked field
>
> As of xfsprogs-4.17 we started testing whether the di_next_unlinked field
> on an inode is valid in the inode verifiers. However, this field is never
> tested or repaired during inode processing.
>
> So if, for example, we had a completely zeroed-out inode, we'd detect and
> fix the broken magic and version, but the invalid di_next_unlinked field
> would not be touched, fail the write verifier, and prevent the inode from
> being properly repaired or even written out.
>
> Fix this by checking the di_next_unlinked inode field for validity and
> clearing it if it is invalid.
>
> Reported-by: John Jore <john@xxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 2949b4677 ("xfs: don't accept inode buffers with suspicious unlinked chains")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/repair/dinode.c b/repair/dinode.c
> index 8af2cb25..c5d2f350 100644
> --- a/repair/dinode.c
> +++ b/repair/dinode.c
> @@ -2272,6 +2272,7 @@ process_dinode_int(xfs_mount_t *mp,
> const int is_free = 0;
> const int is_used = 1;
> blkmap_t *dblkmap = NULL;
> + xfs_agino_t unlinked_ino;
>
> *dirty = *isa_dir = 0;
> *used = is_used;
> @@ -2351,6 +2352,23 @@ process_dinode_int(xfs_mount_t *mp,
> }
> }
>
> + unlinked_ino = be32_to_cpu(dino->di_next_unlinked);
> + if (!xfs_verify_agino_or_null(mp, agno, unlinked_ino)) {
> + retval = 1;
> + if (!uncertain)
> + do_warn(_("bad next_unlinked 0x%x on inode %" PRIu64 "%c"),
> + (__s32)dino->di_next_unlinked, lino,
> + verify_mode ? '\n' : ',');
> + if (!verify_mode) {
> + if (!no_modify) {
> + do_warn(_(" resetting next_unlinked\n"));
> + clear_dinode_unlinked(mp, dino);
> + *dirty = 1;
> + } else
> + do_warn(_(" would reset next_unlinked\n"));
> + }
> + }
> +
> /*
> * We don't bother checking the CRC here - we cannot guarantee that when
> * we are called here that the inode has not already been modified in
>
>
>
