On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:50 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 03:02:02PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote: > > Hi Ted, > > > > Recently, one of our customers found this message in pass2 of e2fsck while > > doing some regression testing: > > "Entry '4, 0x695a, 0x81ff, 0x0040, 0x8320, 0xa192, 0x0021' in ??? (136554) > > has > > rec_len of 14200, should be 26908." > > > > Both the displayed rec_len and the "should be" value are bogus. The > > reason is that salvage_directory sets a offset beyond blocksize > > leading to bogus messages. > > Do you have a test case where this happens? I don't think your patch > is right, because if dirent->rec_len is too big, this yes, your patch > will make sure offset doesn't get set beyond fs->blocksize, but it > ends up leaving prev->rec_len also pointing beyond fs->blocksize --- > which means a 2nd e2fsck should result in a complaint about that.
Yes even prev->rec_len cannot be beyond fs->blocksize. I do have the corrupt filesystem image but it is a large one. This patch certainly works well and corrects the problem in a single run of e2fsck. Thanks, Kalpak. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
