On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 06:27:13PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> On 02/13/2018 05:01 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > On 2018年02月13日 11:00, Anand Jain wrote:
> >> Fixes the endianness bug in the fs_info::super_copy by using its
> >> btrfs_set_super...() function to set values in the SB, as these
> >> functions manage the endianness compatibility nicely.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.j...@oracle.com>
> > 
> > Also went through all btrfs_super_block SETGET functions, greping using
> > \><member name>, seems that there are still some left here:
> > 
> > fs/btrfs/sysfs.c:
> > In both btrfs_sectorsize_show() and btrfs_clone_alignment_show():
> >     return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%u\n",
> >                     fs_info->super_copy->sectorsize);
> > 
> > In btrfs_nodesize_show():
> >     return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%u\n", fs_info->super_copy->nodesize);
> 
>   Oh. Thanks. Will fix. Maybe it's a good idea to add sysfs fixes
>   into a new patch.

I'd prefer a single patch as it fixes the same problem for one
structure, the context of use is not that important to justify 2
patches.

I went through the possible uses of superblock again and did not find
anything else than the update_super_roots and sysfs read handlers. There
are some direct uses of super block members, like label, sys_array, uuid
that are passed unconverted and must be accessed via the set/get
helpers.

In some places the superblock is put to a temporary variable so simple
grep may miss these.

> > And what about cc this to stable kernel?
> > IIRC it's a very critical problem for btrfs.

If the filesystem is always used on a same endianity host, this will not
be a problem. Moving between opposite endianity hosts will report bogus
numbers in sysfs and the backup root would not be restored correctly.

As this is not common, I'd rate thats as a bugfix for stable, but "only"
a serious one.

> > Maybe cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org # v3.2+?
> 
>   Thanks for the suggestion. Will do. Any idea what if the patch which
>   applied on mainline ends up conflict on LTS, so write a separate patch
>   to stable?

If the patch does not apply to some older stable branch, all involved
people get a mail from stable team and have an opportunity to send an
updated version of the patch.

Regarding the long-term branches, I would consider 4.4 and up. Anything
older is a plus but fixing merge conflicts is more likely there so I
think the respective maintainers would either fix it by themselves or
ask for help.
--
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

Reply via email to