linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] Make some ext3 kernel messages useful by showing device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <484D3378.9090708@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:43:20 -0500
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	LKML Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make some ext3 kernel messages useful by showing device

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:02:41 +0200 Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk> wrote:
> 
>> Hello.
>>
>> Some of the ext3 warnings in super.c are not really as useful as they
>> can be, for instance the "EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached,
>> running e2fsck is recommended" message, does not tell which device it
>> actually is.
> 
> Seems sensible.
> 
>> Below is patch(both inlined, and in attached form, since i dont trust my
>> mailer),
> 
> That really tricks me.  Because the resulting file applies nicely with
> `patch --dry-run' but doesn't apply with plain old `patch'.  Inlined is
> preferred, attached is grumpily accepted, but please avoid duplicating
> the patch.
> 
>> to a patch which fixes that particular message, and a few more.
>> I could look at the rest if anyones interrested?
> 
> We like to keep ext3 and ext4 in sync as much as poss, please.
> 
>> Oh, and i dont really know if this is nessecary, but:
>> Signed-off-by: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
> 
> It is very much preferred, thanks.
> 
> (patch retained for linux-ext4 review)

The patch itself looks fine to me, and is a good idea.  I recently saw a
confused user on another fs where successful mount messages were
followed by failure mount messages with no indication of which fs had
the trouble...

There probably are more spots in extX which could use this treatment...
should we maybe just be using ext3_warning in more places, which
automatically prints the sb, function name, etc?

-Eric

>> --- super.c.orig	2008-06-08 20:49:26.153047364 +0200
>> +++ super.c	2008-06-08 20:45:20.812047463 +0200
>> @@ -1188,31 +1188,31 @@
>>  	int res = 0;
>>  
>>  	if (le32_to_cpu(es->s_rev_level) > EXT3_MAX_SUPP_REV) {
>> -		printk (KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs warning: revision level too high, "
>> -			"forcing read-only mode\n");
>> +		printk (KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs on %s warning: revision level too high, "
>> +			"forcing read-only mode\n", sb->s_id);
>>  		res = MS_RDONLY;
>>  	}
>>  	if (read_only)
>>  		return res;
>>  	if (!(sbi->s_mount_state & EXT3_VALID_FS))
>> -		printk (KERN_WARNING "EXT3-fs warning: mounting unchecked fs, "
>> -			"running e2fsck is recommended\n");
>> +		printk (KERN_WARNING "EXT3-fs on %s warning: mounting unchecked fs, "
>> +			"running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
>>  	else if ((sbi->s_mount_state & EXT3_ERROR_FS))
>>  		printk (KERN_WARNING
>> -			"EXT3-fs warning: mounting fs with errors, "
>> -			"running e2fsck is recommended\n");
>> +			"EXT3-fs on %s warning: mounting fs with errors, "
>> +			"running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
>>  	else if ((__s16) le16_to_cpu(es->s_max_mnt_count) >= 0 &&
>>  		 le16_to_cpu(es->s_mnt_count) >=
>>  		 (unsigned short) (__s16) le16_to_cpu(es->s_max_mnt_count))
>>  		printk (KERN_WARNING
>> -			"EXT3-fs warning: maximal mount count reached, "
>> -			"running e2fsck is recommended\n");
>> +			"EXT3-fs on %s warning: maximal mount count reached, "
>> +			"running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
>>  	else if (le32_to_cpu(es->s_checkinterval) &&
>>  		(le32_to_cpu(es->s_lastcheck) +
>>  			le32_to_cpu(es->s_checkinterval) <= get_seconds()))
>>  		printk (KERN_WARNING
>> -			"EXT3-fs warning: checktime reached, "
>> -			"running e2fsck is recommended\n");
>> +			"EXT3-fs on %s warning: checktime reached, "
>> +			"running e2fsck is recommended\n", sb->s_id);
>>  #if 0
>>  		/* @@@ We _will_ want to clear the valid bit if we find
>>                     inconsistencies, to force a fsck at reboot.  But for
>> @@ -1339,8 +1339,8 @@
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	if (bdev_read_only(sb->s_bdev)) {
>> -		printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs: write access "
>> -			"unavailable, skipping orphan cleanup.\n");
>> +		printk(KERN_ERR "EXT3-fs on %s: write access "
>> +			"unavailable, skipping orphan cleanup.\n", sb->s_id);
>>  		return;
>>  	}
>>  
>>
>>
> --
> 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

--
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