[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AA96CB0.3090309@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:16:32 -0500
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
CC: ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC V3] ext4: limit block allocations for indirect-block
files to < 2^32
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Sep 10, 2009 11:02 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> This patch limits such allocations to < 232, and adds
>> WARN_ONs (maybe should be BUG_ONs) if we do get blocks
>> larger than that.
>
> Given that this may corrupt the filesystem (e.g. block
> 2^32 turning into block 0 and overwriting the superblock)
> I think a BUG_ON() is probably more appropriate. This
> should only happen with software bugs, so it is more
> appropriate than ext4_error() I think.
Ok, fine by me. I can send an update.
Any suggestions on the naming issues? (what's the official name for a
"not-extent-based-file?")
I ran it a lot through a mkfs/mount/fsstress/unmount/fsck cycle, and all
seemed well. mkfs was without extents, so I was thinking we were in
good shape.
However, Ric just ran a massive fs_mark test on a 60T filesystem that he
created with "mke2fs" (no extents and no journal - accidentally) and we
got no corruption even without this patch.
I need to see if a filesystem w/o the extents feature (at all, vs. some
old-format files on an extents fs) never even tries to allocate past
2^32; I didn't think so, but now not so sure.
I probably need to do more testing ...
-Eric
--
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