On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 03:29:42PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 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.
will fix.
>
> >
> > 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.
will send another patch together with the next version.
>
> > 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)) {
>
Ok, yet I think the comment might describe failure condition (which causes
-EFSCORRUPTED) instead directly, like,
/*
* Either (sb_unit and !hasdalign) or (!sb_unit and hasdalign)
* would imply the image is corrupted.
*/
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.
Ok, will update in the next version.
>
> > + 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..."
Will update too.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> --D
