On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 05:07:04PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> @@ -125,7 +154,20 @@ int make_btrfs(int fd, const char *device, const char *label,
> >> memset(&super, 0, sizeof(super));
> >>
> >> num_bytes = (num_bytes / sectorsize) * sectorsize;
> >> - uuid_generate(super.fsid);
> >> + if (fs_uuid) {
> >> + if (uuid_parse(fs_uuid, super.fsid) != 0) {
> >> + fprintf(stderr, "could not parse UUID: %s\n", fs_uuid);
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >> + if (!test_uuid_unique(fs_uuid)) {
> >> + fprintf(stderr, "non-unique UUID: %s\n", fs_uuid);
> >> + ret = -EBUSY;
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >
> > Why a second call to test_uuid_unique(fs_uuid) ?
>
> Because kdave said he thought it was worth being paranoid in an earlier email,
> if I understood him correctly.
I'm thinking about it again. My original idea was not to easily allow
to create a duplicate uuid to a regular user. But, if one uses --uuid
already, that's something I can count as a willful action and any
mistakes can be blamed on the user.
If we end up with a warning, then the documentation should say how
spectacularly it can blow up the system.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
