On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 05:40:27PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 09:44:51AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > When a corrupt inode fork is encountered, we can zero beyond the end > > of the inode if the fork pointers are sufficiently trashed. We > > should not trust the fork pointers when corruption is detected and > > skip the zeroing in this case. We want metadump to capture the > > corruption and so skipping the zeroing will give us the best chance > > of preserving the corruption in a meaningful state for diagnosis. > > > > Reported-by: Sean Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Hmm. I /think/ the only real change here is the addition of the > DFORK_DSIZE > LITINO warning, right? The rest is just reindenting the > loop body? Yes. > If so, LGTM. > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
