On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:04:01PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Introduce a common helper to consolidate
> stripe validation process. Also make kernel
> code xfs_validate_sb_common() use it first.
Please use all 72(?) columns here.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> libxfs/xfs_sb.h | 3 +++
These libxfs changes will have to go through the kernel first.
> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> index d37d60b39a52..bd65828c844e 100644
> --- a/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> +++ b/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> @@ -357,21 +357,13 @@ xfs_validate_sb_common(
> }
> }
>
> - if (sbp->sb_unit) {
> - if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) ||
> - sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width ||
> - (sbp->sb_width % sbp->sb_unit) != 0) {
> - xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe unit sanity check failed");
> - return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> - }
> - } else if (xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> + if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
Urgh, this logic makes my brain hurt.
"If the zeroness of sb_unit differs from the unsetness of the dalign
feature"? This might need some kind of comment, such as:
/*
* Either sb_unit and hasdalign are both set, or they are zero
* and not set, respectively.
*/
if (!sbp->sb_unit ^ !xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp)) {
> xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe alignment sanity check failed");
> return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> - } else if (sbp->sb_width) {
> - xfs_notice(mp, "SB stripe width sanity check failed");
> - return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> }
>
> + if (!xfs_validate_stripe_factors(mp, sbp->sb_unit, sbp->sb_width, 0))
> + return -EFSCORRUPTED;
>
> if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb) &&
> sbp->sb_blocksize < XFS_MIN_CRC_BLOCKSIZE) {
> @@ -1208,3 +1200,43 @@ xfs_sb_get_secondary(
> *bpp = bp;
> return 0;
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * If sectorsize is specified, sunit / swidth must be in bytes;
> + * or both can be in any kind of units (e.g. 512B sector or blocksize).
> + */
> +bool
> +xfs_validate_stripe_factors(
> + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> + int sunit,
> + int swidth,
> + int sectorsize)
> +{
> + if (sectorsize && sunit % sectorsize) {
> + xfs_notice(mp,
> +"stripe unit (%d) must be a multiple of the sector size (%d)",
> + sunit, sectorsize);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + if ((sunit && !swidth) || (!sunit && swidth)) {
> + xfs_notice(mp,
> +"stripe unit (%d) and width (%d) are partially valid", sunit, swidth);
I would break these into separate checks and messages.
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + if (sunit > swidth) {
> + xfs_notice(mp,
> +"stripe unit (%d) is too large of the stripe width (%d)", sunit, swidth);
"stripe unit (%d) is larger than the stripe width..."
--D
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + if (sunit && (swidth % sunit)) {
> + xfs_notice(mp,
> +"stripe width (%d) must be a multiple of the stripe unit (%d)",
> + swidth, sunit);
> + return false;
> + }
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> diff --git a/libxfs/xfs_sb.h b/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
> index 92465a9a5162..015b2605f587 100644
> --- a/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
> +++ b/libxfs/xfs_sb.h
> @@ -42,4 +42,7 @@ extern int xfs_sb_get_secondary(struct xfs_mount *mp,
> struct xfs_trans *tp, xfs_agnumber_t agno,
> struct xfs_buf **bpp);
>
> +extern bool xfs_validate_stripe_factors(struct xfs_mount *mp,
> + int sunit, int swidth, int sectorsize);
> +
> #endif /* __XFS_SB_H__ */
> --
> 2.24.0
>
