[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184003549.4347.6.camel@garfield>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 23:22:05 +0530
From: Kalpak Shah <kalpak@...sterfs.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
Subject: Re: [e2fsprogs] Bug in salvage_directory
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:50 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 03:02:02PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > Recently, one of our customers found this message in pass2 of e2fsck while doing some regression testing:
> > "Entry '4, 0x695a, 0x81ff, 0x0040, 0x8320, 0xa192, 0x0021' in ??? (136554) has
> > rec_len of 14200, should be 26908."
> >
> > Both the displayed rec_len and the "should be" value are bogus. The
> > reason is that salvage_directory sets a offset beyond blocksize
> > leading to bogus messages.
>
> Do you have a test case where this happens? I don't think your patch
> is right, because if dirent->rec_len is too big, this yes, your patch
> will make sure offset doesn't get set beyond fs->blocksize, but it
> ends up leaving prev->rec_len also pointing beyond fs->blocksize ---
> which means a 2nd e2fsck should result in a complaint about that.
Yes even prev->rec_len cannot be beyond fs->blocksize. I do have the
corrupt filesystem image but it is a large one.
This patch certainly works well and corrects the problem in a single run
of e2fsck.
Thanks,
Kalpak.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists