[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aSVNOhcK3PvdlSET@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 22:31:22 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Raphael Pinsonneault-Thibeault <rpthibeault@...il.com>, cem@...nel.org,
chandanbabu@...nel.org, bfoster@...hat.com, david@...morbit.com,
hch@...radead.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linux.dev,
syzbot+9f6d080dece587cfdd4c@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] xfs: validate log record version against superblock
log version
> Hrmm maybe we ought to reserve XLOG_VERSION==0x3 so that whenever we do
> log v3 we don't accidentally write logs with bits that won't be
> validated quite right on old kernels?
Why do we need to reserve that? The code checks for either 1 or 2
right now based on the log feature flag. If we add a v3 log we'll
have to ammend this, but reservations won't help with that.
> > + if (xfs_has_logv2(mp)) {
> > + if (XFS_IS_CORRUPT(mp, h_version != XLOG_VERSION_2))
>
> Being pedantic here, but the kernel cpu_to_be32 wrappers are magic in
> that they compile to byteswapped constants so you can avoid the runtime
> overhead of byteswapping rhead->h_version by doing:
>
> if (XFS_IS_CORRUPT(mp,
> rhead->h_version != cpu_to_be32(XLOG_VERSION_2)))
> return -EFSCORRUPTED;
>
> But seeing as this is log validation for recovery, I think the
> performance implications are vanishingly small.
Yes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists