On 3/19/15 12:54 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> 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)?
Hm, yeah. Maybe moving my new hunk above that check makes sense.
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
