On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:07:04PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> @@ -125,7 +154,20 @@ int make_btrfs(int fd, const char *device, const char > >> *label, > >> memset(&super, 0, sizeof(super)); > >> > >> num_bytes = (num_bytes / sectorsize) * sectorsize; > >> - uuid_generate(super.fsid); > >> + if (fs_uuid) { > >> + if (uuid_parse(fs_uuid, super.fsid) != 0) { > >> + fprintf(stderr, "could not parse UUID: %s\n", fs_uuid); > >> + ret = -EINVAL; > >> + goto out; > >> + } > >> + if (!test_uuid_unique(fs_uuid)) { > >> + fprintf(stderr, "non-unique UUID: %s\n", fs_uuid); > >> + ret = -EBUSY; > >> + goto out; > >> + } > > > > Why a second call to test_uuid_unique(fs_uuid) ? > > Because kdave said he thought it was worth being paranoid in an earlier email, > if I understood him correctly.
I'm thinking about it again. My original idea was not to easily allow to create a duplicate uuid to a regular user. But, if one uses --uuid already, that's something I can count as a willful action and any mistakes can be blamed on the user. If we end up with a warning, then the documentation should say how spectacularly it can blow up the system. -- 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