On 08/14/13 01:40, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 05:13:31PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
Adding the lost+found in phase 6 could allocate an inode from
a new inode chunk. That newly created chunk was not around in
the scan phase, and is not in the avl tree which will result
in a NULL dereference.
This patch adds the newly created inode chunk and inodes as if
found in the scan phase.
Metadata dump available for future tests.
Signed-off-by: Mark Tinguely<tinguely@xxxxxxx>
---
repair/incore_ino.c | 2 +-
repair/phase6.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: b/repair/incore_ino.c
===================================================================
--- a/repair/incore_ino.c
+++ b/repair/incore_ino.c
@@ -700,7 +700,7 @@ get_inode_parent(ino_tree_node_t *irec,
return(0LL);
}
-static void
+void
alloc_ex_data(ino_tree_node_t *irec)
{
parent_list_t *ptbl;
Index: b/repair/phase6.c
===================================================================
--- a/repair/phase6.c
+++ b/repair/phase6.c
@@ -930,6 +930,21 @@ mk_orphanage(xfs_mount_t *mp)
irec = find_inode_rec(mp,
XFS_INO_TO_AGNO(mp, ino),
XFS_INO_TO_AGINO(mp, ino));
+
+ if (irec == NULL&& XFS_INO_TO_AGNO(mp, ino)< mp->m_sb.sb_agcount&&
+ ip != NULL&& ip->i_d.di_magic == XFS_DINODE_MAGIC) {
I don't understand this check.
We've already dereferenced ip several lines above to increment the
link count and get the inode number stored in ino, so the ip != NULL
is unnecessary.
We've just allocated the inode, so why would the magic number be
wrong? And why would the inode number lie in a non-existent
allocation group?
just being being paranoid.
+ /*
+ * add the newly allocated inode chunk to the avl tree.
+ */
I can see from the code we are allocating and irec, inserting it
into the AVL tree and marking all the inodes in the chunk as free.
The comment should explain *why* we need to do this.
Cheers,
Dave.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs