On 2017年11月29日 03:02, David Sterba wrote: > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:41:28PM +0800, Gu Jinxiang wrote: >> The following test failed becasuse share_data_ref be added into >> extent_cache when deal with root tree node. > > The whole function run_next_block would need to be revisited with > respect to error handling and sanity checks. Adding them only when a > fuzzed image hits the particular code path is not IMHO the best > approach.
As suggested before, backporting tree-checker from kernel may be a good solution for all later possible fuzzed problem. (And can make btrfs-progs become a good testbed for tree-checker related patches before merging into kernel) For this particular case, planned key->type check against root should handle it quite well. Thanks, Qu > > If there's some fuzzed test case, we should try to find all similar > missing checks and fix them before moving to another type. Addressing > only the failed tests gives a false sense of fixing, there are usally > more similar bugs. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
