From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: Fix incorrect interior node logical start values
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:43:44 -0600
Message-ID: <50B790C0.6080608@redhat.com>
References: <50A546D8.3020500@redhat.com> <20121129133129.GC20413@thunk.org> <50B77DB7.70307@redhat.com> <20121129164029.GA16577@thunk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20121129164029.GA16577@thunk.org>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 11/29/12 10:40 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>> But it's a weird inconsistency isn't it, and fixing it up in fsck should
>> be the right thing to do anyway?
> 
> Oh, I agree, but basically, as a result I'm going to put this patch on
> hold until we do a bit more testing.  I'm just not ready to push this
> out on the maint branch just yet.....
> 
> (The general rule is that I want to keep the maint branch in a state
> where someone who wants to take a snapshot for a production
> environment should feel generally comfortable to do this --- modulo
> rollout/integration testing, of course.  I'll keep it on an
> es/fsck-int-node-fixup branch to make sure we don't lose it, but it's
> something where I want to add some additional testing before I'm
> comfortable rolling it out to the maint branch, just to make sure it
> doesn't trigger any regression.)

FWIW, I hacked xfstests to always check the scratch device after any
test uses it, too, and I'm re-running with this change to be sure
it'll run over every fs modification xfstests makes ...

I'll send that upstream, too.

> BTW, while I was experimenting with test cases I found another related
> bug (but not a regression) where e2fsck isn't able to fix up a
> specific fs corruption (see attached).  It's unlikely to happen in
> real life, but given how easily I was able to create something that
> e2fsck can't fix, it's clear we were missing some synthetic test
> cases.

At one point I turned fsfuzzer into fsckfuzzer, but it was a
"My God, it's full of bugs!" moment for most fileystems, IIRC.  ;)

But if anyone wants to generate some fsck bugs to fix . . .

-Eric

> 						- Ted
>