On 2019/3/11 下午11:25, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 8.03.19 г. 9:29 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> We already have btrfs_check_chunk_valid() to verify each chunk before
>> tree-checker.
>>
>> Merge that function into tree-checker, and update its error message to
>> be more readable.
>>
>> Old error message would be something like:
>> BTRFS error (device dm-3): invalid chunk num_stipres: 0
>>
>> New error message would be:
>> Btrfs critical (device dm-3): corrupt superblock syschunk array:
>> chunk_start=2097152, invalid chunk num_stripes: 0
>> Or
>> Btrfs critical (device dm-3): corrupt leaf: root=3 block=8388608 slot=3
>> chunk_start=2097152, invalid chunk num_stripes: 0
>>
>> Btrfs_check_chunk_valid() is exported for super block syschunk array
>> verification.
>>
>> Also make tree-checker to verify chunk items, this makes chunk item
>> checker covers all chunks and avoid fuzzed image.
>>
>> Reported-by: Yoon Jungyeon <jungy...@gatech.edu>
>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=202751
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
>
> Actually since the reporter made images available I would like to have
> those integrated into the fsck group so that those changes can be
> validated and ensure further regressions do not creep up.
>
Add David into this discussion.
This topic seems to be mentioned before.
Should we put kernel test cases into btrfs-progs?
We have fuzzed test groups for btrfs-progs mainly, but we don't really
have kernel tests in btrfs-progs.
Is it proper to put kernel-crashing tests into btrfs-progs?
If not, where should we put such tests?
And BTW, I originally wanted to craft the minimal image for those tests,
but quite a lot of the image needs several corruption combined to hit
the pitfall. I'm not sure if it's worthy to create the minimal image.
Thanks,
Qu
