From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Alex Lyakas <alex@zadara.com>
Cc: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC-PATCH] xfs: do not update sunit/swidth in the superblock to match those provided during mount
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 11:38:53 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c807e9fb-3ad9-7110-fd5d-29b07a3d1c66@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191124164012.GL6219@magnolia>
On 11/24/19 10:40 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 11:13:09AM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:
...
>>>> With the suggested patch, xfs repair is working properly also when mount-provided sunit/swidth are different.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am not sure whether this is the proper approach.
>>>> Otherwise, should we not allow specifying different sunit/swidth
>>>> during mount?
>
> I propose a (somewhat) different solution to this problem:
>
> Port to libxfs the code that determines where mkfs/repair expect the
> root inode. Whenever we want to update the geometry information in the
> superblock from mount options, we can test the new ones to see if that
> would cause sb_rootino to change. If there's no change, we update
> everything like we do now. If it would change, either we run with those
> parameters incore only (which I think is possible for su/sw?) or refuse
> them (because corruption is bad).
>
> This way we don't lose the su/sw updating behavior we have now, and we
> also gain the ability to shut down an entire class of accidental sb
> geometry corruptions.
I also wonder if we should be putting so much weight on the root inode
location in repair, or if we could get away with other consistency checks
to be sure it's legit, since we've always been able to move the
"expected" Location.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-24 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-21 18:08 [RFC-PATCH] xfs: do not update sunit/swidth in the superblock to match those provided during mount Alex Lyakas
2019-11-22 15:43 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-24 9:13 ` Alex Lyakas
2019-11-24 16:40 ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-11-24 17:38 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2019-11-25 13:07 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-26 8:50 ` Alex Lyakas
2019-11-25 13:07 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-26 8:49 ` Alex Lyakas
2019-11-26 11:54 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-26 13:37 ` Alex Lyakas
2019-11-26 16:53 ` Eric Sandeen
2019-11-27 14:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-11-27 15:19 ` Brian Foster
2019-11-30 20:28 ` Dave Chinner
2019-12-01 9:00 ` Alex Lyakas
2019-12-01 21:57 ` Dave Chinner
2019-12-02 8:07 ` Alex Lyakas
2019-12-01 23:29 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=c807e9fb-3ad9-7110-fd5d-29b07a3d1c66@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=alex@zadara.com \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).