| Message ID | 4D52DFE7.4050301@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 2/9/11 12:41 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I had an extremely corrupted customer filesystem which, after thousands > of lines of e2fsck output, found one more problem on an immediately > subsequent e2fsck. In short, a file had had its i_file_acl block > cloned due to being a duplicate. That ultimately got cleared > because the fs did not have the xattr feature, and the inode > was subsequently removed due to invalid mode. > > The 2nd e2fsck pass found the cloned xattr block as in use, but > not owned by any file, and had to fix up the block bitmaps. > > Simply skipping the processing of duplicate xattr blocks on a > non-xattr filesystem seems reasonable, since they will be cleared > later in any case. > > (also fix existing brace misalignment) > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> Ted, ping on this one? Would like to get it upstream before pushing it to RHEL, because as we all know now, that's how we roll at Red Hat. :) Thanks, -Eric > --- > > diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1b.c b/e2fsck/pass1b.c > index 155fcba..2ddaeb4 100644 > --- a/e2fsck/pass1b.c > +++ b/e2fsck/pass1b.c > @@ -310,12 +310,14 @@ static void pass1b(e2fsck_t ctx, char *block_buf) > pctx.errcode = ext2fs_block_iterate3(fs, ino, > BLOCK_FLAG_READ_ONLY, block_buf, > process_pass1b_block, &pb); > - if (ext2fs_file_acl_block(&inode)) { > + /* If the feature is not set, attrs will be cleared later anyway */ > + if ((fs->super->s_feature_compat & EXT2_FEATURE_COMPAT_EXT_ATTR) && > + ext2fs_file_acl_block(&inode)) { > blk64_t blk = ext2fs_file_acl_block(&inode); > process_pass1b_block(fs, &blk, > BLOCK_COUNT_EXTATTR, 0, 0, &pb); > ext2fs_file_acl_block_set(&inode, blk); > - } > + } > if (pb.dup_blocks) { > end_problem_latch(ctx, PR_LATCH_DBLOCK); > if (ino >= EXT2_FIRST_INODE(fs->super) || > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 3/9/11 3:01 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/9/11 12:41 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> I had an extremely corrupted customer filesystem which, after thousands >> of lines of e2fsck output, found one more problem on an immediately >> subsequent e2fsck. In short, a file had had its i_file_acl block >> cloned due to being a duplicate. That ultimately got cleared >> because the fs did not have the xattr feature, and the inode >> was subsequently removed due to invalid mode. >> >> The 2nd e2fsck pass found the cloned xattr block as in use, but >> not owned by any file, and had to fix up the block bitmaps. >> >> Simply skipping the processing of duplicate xattr blocks on a >> non-xattr filesystem seems reasonable, since they will be cleared >> later in any case. >> >> (also fix existing brace misalignment) >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> > > Ted, ping on this one? Would like to get it upstream before > pushing it to RHEL, because as we all know now, that's how > we roll at Red Hat. :) Ping again, for review and/or merge of this one, it's approaching 4 months old now... Thanks, -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 5/23/11 12:52 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Ping again, for review and/or merge of this one, it's approaching 4 months old now... > Actually I'll rebase & resend now. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 5/23/11 1:00 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/23/11 12:52 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> Ping again, for review and/or merge of this one, it's approaching 4 months old now... >> > > Actually I'll rebase & resend now. Argh, I take it back, too many trees, sorry. Original patch is still fine. -Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:41:43PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I had an extremely corrupted customer filesystem which, after thousands > of lines of e2fsck output, found one more problem on an immediately > subsequent e2fsck. In short, a file had had its i_file_acl block > cloned due to being a duplicate. That ultimately got cleared > because the fs did not have the xattr feature, and the inode > was subsequently removed due to invalid mode. > > The 2nd e2fsck pass found the cloned xattr block as in use, but > not owned by any file, and had to fix up the block bitmaps. > > Simply skipping the processing of duplicate xattr blocks on a > non-xattr filesystem seems reasonable, since they will be cleared > later in any case. > > (also fix existing brace misalignment) > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> Applied, sorry for the delay. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1b.c b/e2fsck/pass1b.c index 155fcba..2ddaeb4 100644 --- a/e2fsck/pass1b.c +++ b/e2fsck/pass1b.c @@ -310,12 +310,14 @@ static void pass1b(e2fsck_t ctx, char *block_buf) pctx.errcode = ext2fs_block_iterate3(fs, ino, BLOCK_FLAG_READ_ONLY, block_buf, process_pass1b_block, &pb); - if (ext2fs_file_acl_block(&inode)) { + /* If the feature is not set, attrs will be cleared later anyway */ + if ((fs->super->s_feature_compat & EXT2_FEATURE_COMPAT_EXT_ATTR) && + ext2fs_file_acl_block(&inode)) { blk64_t blk = ext2fs_file_acl_block(&inode); process_pass1b_block(fs, &blk, BLOCK_COUNT_EXTATTR, 0, 0, &pb); ext2fs_file_acl_block_set(&inode, blk); - } + } if (pb.dup_blocks) { end_problem_latch(ctx, PR_LATCH_DBLOCK); if (ino >= EXT2_FIRST_INODE(fs->super) ||
I had an extremely corrupted customer filesystem which, after thousands of lines of e2fsck output, found one more problem on an immediately subsequent e2fsck. In short, a file had had its i_file_acl block cloned due to being a duplicate. That ultimately got cleared because the fs did not have the xattr feature, and the inode was subsequently removed due to invalid mode. The 2nd e2fsck pass found the cloned xattr block as in use, but not owned by any file, and had to fix up the block bitmaps. Simply skipping the processing of duplicate xattr blocks on a non-xattr filesystem seems reasonable, since they will be cleared later in any case. (also fix existing brace misalignment) Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> --- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html