On 19.04.2018 12:38, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Although we have already checked incompat flags manually before really > mounting it, we could still enhance btrfs_check_super_valid() to check > incompat flags for later write time super block validation check. > > This patch adds such incompat flags check for btrfs_check_super_valid(), > currently it won't be triggered, but provides the basis for later write > time check. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <[email protected]> > --- > fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > index 60caa68c3618..ec123158f051 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c > @@ -4104,6 +4104,19 @@ static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct > btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) nit: Thinking out loud here - wouldn't it make more sense to name the function btrfs_validate_super. check_super_valid sounds a bit cumbersome to me. What do you think ? > ret = -EINVAL; > } > > + /* > + * Before calling btrfs_check_super_valid() we have already checked > + * incompat flags. So if we developr new incompat flags, it's must be s/developr/detect ? > + * some corruption. > + */ > + if (btrfs_super_incompat_flags(sb) & ~BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SUPP) { > + btrfs_err(fs_info, > + "corrupted incompat flags detected 0x%llx, supported 0x%llx", > + btrfs_super_incompat_flags(sb), > + BTRFS_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_SUPP); > + ret = -EINVAL; > + } > + > /* > * The generation is a global counter, we'll trust it more than the > others > * but it's still possible that it's the one that's wrong. > -- 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
