On 9/16/13 5:55 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:55:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> This patch adds a "-D" switch to fsstress so that every time >> we call readdir, we stat the dentry & compare it's st_mode >> to the d_type. >> >> If -D is specified only once, it ignores DT_UNKNOWN. If specified >> twice, it considers DT_UNKNOWN to be an error. > > Hmmmm. DT_UNKNOWN is actually a valid type on disk right through to the > userspace interface. I can't think of why we'd want to consider it > invalid, especially as right now xfs_repair siply zeros the field > when recreating directory entries... well, I didn't know that last part. (but why do that?) I was thinking along the lines of DT_UNKNOWN returns meaning "this fs doesn't support d_type." "If the file type could not be determined, the value DT_UNKNOWN is returned in d_type." What d_type-grokking fs can't determine its file types? -Eric > Cheers, > > Dave. > >> +void test_d_type(int opno, pathname_t *f, struct dirent64 *de) >> +{ >> + struct stat64 sb; >> + char path[PATH_MAX]; >> + >> + snprintf(path, PATH_MAX, "%s/%s", f->path, de->d_name); >> + >> + /* Don't check ./. or ./.. */ >> + if (!strncmp(path, "./.", 3)) >> + return; > > . and .. should have the values of DT_UNKNOWN or DT_DIR. They are > the only valid values for these entries. > >> + >> + if (lstat64(path, &sb)) { >> + printf("%d/%d: getdents - can't stat %s\n", >> + procid, opno, path); >> + } else { >> + int bad_d_type = 0; >> + >> + switch (de->d_type) { >> + case DT_BLK: >> + if (!S_ISBLK(sb.st_mode)) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + case DT_CHR: >> + if (!S_ISCHR(sb.st_mode)) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + case DT_DIR: >> + if (!S_ISDIR(sb.st_mode)) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + case DT_FIFO: >> + if (!S_ISFIFO(sb.st_mode)) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + case DT_LNK: >> + if (!S_ISLNK(sb.st_mode)) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + case DT_REG: >> + if (!S_ISREG(sb.st_mode)) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + case DT_SOCK: >> + if (!S_ISSOCK(sb.st_mode)) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + case DT_UNKNOWN: >> + if (verify_d_type > 1) >> + bad_d_type++; >> + break; >> + } > > And DT_WHT? That's defined on disk and in the user interface ;) > > i.e. this will not do the right thing with an unknown de->d_type. > > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs