On 5/26/15 5:51 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Apparently xfs_repair running on a v5 filesystem doesn't check the
> compat, rocompat, or incompat feature flags for bits that it doesn't
> know about, which means that old xfs_repairs can wreak havoc. So,
> strengthen the checks to prevent repair from "repairing" anything it
> doesn't understand.
>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> repair/versions.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
>
> diff --git a/repair/versions.c b/repair/versions.c
> index c1dff72..e60574d 100644
> --- a/repair/versions.c
> +++ b/repair/versions.c
> @@ -141,6 +141,13 @@ parse_sb_version(xfs_sb_t *sb)
> }
> }
>
> + /* Look for V5 feature flags we don't know about */
> + if (XFS_SB_VERSION_NUM(sb) >= XFS_SB_VERSION_5 &&
> + (xfs_sb_has_ro_compat_feature(sb, XFS_SB_FEAT_RO_COMPAT_UNKNOWN) ||
> + xfs_sb_has_incompat_feature(sb, XFS_SB_FEAT_INCOMPAT_UNKNOWN) ||
> + xfs_sb_has_compat_feature(sb, XFS_SB_FEAT_COMPAT_UNKNOWN)))
> + issue_warning = 1;
> +
should this go after the xfs_sb_good_version() check?
Seems like it's more of a fine-grained check on features for a given super
version, and should come after that check.
i.e. if for some reason XFS_SB_VERSION_NUM == 6, the root problem isn't
the feature set, it's the superblock version number.
And; would it be worth printing out what the features are? I guess we have
no good existing mechanism for that, and could really only print hex values...
still, might be useful for bug reports...
-Eric
> if (issue_warning) {
> do_warn(
> _("This filesystem uses feature(s) not yet supported in this release.\n"
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
