On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 05:23:47PM -0700, Phil White wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:23:32AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > There's also another problem with this - endian swapping is missing. > > Endian swapping doesn't matter. include/linux/types.h defines __be16 as > a __u16 and 0 is 0 is 0, no matter which order you put the bytes. Except that the compiler based endian checks throw a error because it is wrong ;) (make C=2 CF="-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__" fs/xfs/xfs.ko) > Doesn't hurt to make it clear though. > > > xfs: add xfs_da_node verification > > > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_attr.c | 22 ++++------ > > fs/xfs/xfs_attr_leaf.c | 12 +++--- > > fs/xfs/xfs_attr_leaf.h | 8 ++-- > > fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.c | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > fs/xfs/xfs_da_btree.h | 3 ++ > > fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_leaf.c | 2 +- > > fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_priv.h | 1 + > > 7 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-) > > I'm a little surprised (and dismayed) that it passed xfstests with that. > Presumably, it never ran into a case where level or count were > 0 on > an invalid xfs_da_node. Sure, xfstests doesn't usually trigger directory corruption, and so it never would have had a chance to fail the verification incorrectly. More than anything, what we are testing with xfstests is that the verification doesn't introduce regressions, not that the verification is 100% correct. Review is what catches the thinkos and typos (as it has in this case), so I think the process is working as it should. ;) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
