Hi Brian,
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 09:06:51AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2020 at 01:24:21PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > Check stripe numbers in calc_stripe_factors() by using
> > xfs_validate_stripe_factors().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > libxfs/libxfs_api_defs.h | 1 +
> > mkfs/xfs_mkfs.c | 23 +++++++----------------
> > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> ...
> > @@ -2344,11 +2334,12 @@ _("data stripe width (%d) must be a multiple of the data stripe unit (%d)\n"),
> >
> > /* if no stripe config set, use the device default */
> > if (!dsunit) {
> > - /* Ignore nonsense from device. XXX add more validation */
> > - if (ft->dsunit && ft->dswidth == 0) {
> > + /* Ignore nonsense from device report. */
> > + if (!libxfs_validate_stripe_factors(NULL, BBTOB(ft->dsunit),
> > + BBTOB(ft->dswidth), 0)) {
>
> The logic seems fine and from the previous comment it sounds like we're
> lacking validation in this particular scenario, but do we want to print
> more error noise from the validation helper in scenarios where failure
> is not a fatal error?
Yeah, If I understand correctly, I think that is an open question here,
so I think you suggested that we could silence for this case by passing
a "bool silent" argument? or some better idea for this?
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> Brian
>
> > fprintf(stderr,
> > -_("%s: Volume reports stripe unit of %d bytes and stripe width of 0, ignoring.\n"),
> > - progname, BBTOB(ft->dsunit));
> > +_("%s: Volume reports invalid stripe unit (%d) and stripe width (%d), ignoring.\n"),
> > + progname, BBTOB(ft->dsunit), BBTOB(ft->dswidth));
> > ft->dsunit = 0;
> > ft->dswidth = 0;
> > } else {
> > --
> > 2.18.1
> >
>
