On Nov 14, 2006 13:38 -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > It would make sense to fix ext2 in the same way.
> > I'd suggest bailing out "early" == min(i_size >> blocksize, i_blocks).
> > The i_blocks count is an upper limit, because it includes the overhead of
> > indirect blocks. Directories cannot be sparse.
>
> so we could either a) keep processing pages based on i_size, until we
> have passed i_blocks, or b) if i_size & i_blocks don't match,
> immediately bail out because we know we have found a corrupted inode
> (vs. a "normal" unreadable block...)
Do we already ext3_error() in this case? That allows the admin to determine
the behaviour already. If it is errors=continue or errors=remount-ro then
we should continue I think. We might consider the inode fatally corrupted
if (i_blocks << 9 < i_size ||
i_blocks > i_size >> (blockbits - 8) + /* blocks */
i_size >> (blockbits * 2 - 8 - 2) + /* indirect */
i_size >> (blockbits * 3 - 8 - 2) + /* dindirect */
i_size >> (blockbits * 4 - 8 - 2)) /* tindirect */
I think... Trying to account for indirect blocks. It is already given a
100% margin (-8 instead of -9) to cover rounding, EA blocks, some small
bugs in block counting, extents format, etc. FYI, the "-2" is 4 bytes/addr.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.
-
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
