On 19.04.2018 12:38, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> Although we have already checked incompat flags manually before really
> mounting it, we could still enhance btrfs_check_super_valid() to check
> incompat flags for later write time super block validation check.
>
> This patch adds such incompat flags check for btrfs_check_super_valid(),
> currently it won't be triggered, but provides the basis for later write
> time check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> index 60caa68c3618..ec123158f051 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> @@ -4104,6 +4104,19 @@ static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct
> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
nit: Thinking out loud here - wouldn't it make more sense to name the
function btrfs_validate_super. check_super_valid sounds a bit cumbersome
to me. What do you think ?
> ret = -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Before calling btrfs_check_super_valid() we have already checked
> + * incompat flags. So if we developr new incompat flags, it's must be
s/developr/detect ?
> + * some corruption.
> + */
> + if (btrfs_super_incompat_flags(sb) & ~BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SUPP) {
> + btrfs_err(fs_info,
> + "corrupted incompat flags detected 0x%llx, supported 0x%llx",
> + btrfs_super_incompat_flags(sb),
> + BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SUPP);
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * The generation is a global counter, we'll trust it more than the
> others
> * but it's still possible that it's the one that's wrong.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
