On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:29:27PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/19/15 11:47 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 03:33:14PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> process_dir2_data() has special . and .. processing; it is able
> >> to correct these inodes, so there is no reason to clear them.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> repair/dir2.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> >> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/repair/dir2.c b/repair/dir2.c
> >> index 9e6c67d..3acf71c 100644
> >> --- a/repair/dir2.c
> >> +++ b/repair/dir2.c
> >> @@ -1331,6 +1331,18 @@ _("entry at block %u offset %" PRIdPTR " in directory inode %" PRIu64
> >> dep->namelen = 1;
> >> clearino = 1;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * We have a special dot & dotdot fixer-upper below which can
> >> + * sort out the proper inode number, so don't clear it.
> >> + */
> >> + if ((dep->namelen == 1 && dep->name[0] == '.') ||
> >> + (dep->namelen == 2 &&
> >> + dep->name[0] == '.' && dep->name[1] == '.')) {
> >> + clearino = 0;
> >> + clearreason = NULL;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >
> > Whitespace damage on the blank line above.
> >
> > Seems Ok, but the question I have is what happens if the dot or dotdot
> > namelen was bogus?
>
> If namelen is 1 and name[0] is '.', or
> if namelen is 2 and name[0] is '.' and name[1] is '..'
>
> then how can that the len be bogus? The test is for the name being
> either precisely '.' or '..' and nothing else, right?
>
Ah, yeah I see. So it would be cleared in that case.
Note that just above if namelen == 0 we set it to 1. Would we have the
opposite problem for hidden files with bogus namelen (i.e., not clear
entries that we should)?
Brian
> -Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
