Eryu pointed out that in fstest xfs/071, we find corruption
reported at the end. This test attempts to do IO at the
maximum possible offsets, and repair yields:
inode 1027 - extent offset too large - start 70, count 1, offset 2251799813685247
correcting nextents for inode 1027
bad data fork in inode 1027
would have cleared inode 1027
Repair is complaining that an extent *starts* at the maximum
block, but AFAICT, starting there is just fine, as long as
we also end there. i.e. a one-block extent at the limit
is just fine.
So change the xfs_repair test to allow this situation.
Also, the warning text is a bit unclear, mixing in the physical
block w/ the logical block... rearrange that a little to make
it obvious.
Reported-by: Eryu Guan <eguan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
V2: Update the warning text
diff --git a/repair/dinode.c b/repair/dinode.c
index 38a6562..59824ec 100644
--- a/repair/dinode.c
+++ b/repair/dinode.c
@@ -667,12 +667,14 @@ _("inode %" PRIu64 " - bad extent overflows - start %" PRIu64 ", "
irec.br_startoff);
goto done;
}
- if (irec.br_startoff >= fs_max_file_offset) {
+ /* Ensure this extent does not extend beyond the max offset */
+ if (irec.br_startoff + irec.br_blockcount - 1 >
+ fs_max_file_offset) {
do_warn(
-_("inode %" PRIu64 " - extent offset too large - start %" PRIu64 ", "
- "count %" PRIu64 ", offset %" PRIu64 "\n"),
- ino, irec.br_startblock, irec.br_blockcount,
- irec.br_startoff);
+_("inode %" PRIu64 " - extent exceeds max offset - start %" PRIu64 ", "
+ "count %" PRIu64 ", physical block %" PRIu64 "\n"),
+ ino, irec.br_startoff, irec.br_blockcount,
+ irec.br_startblock);
goto done;
}
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
