On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:55:49PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2017年11月29日 03:02, David Sterba wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:41:28PM +0800, Gu Jinxiang wrote: > >> The following test failed becasuse share_data_ref be added into > >> extent_cache when deal with root tree node. > > > > The whole function run_next_block would need to be revisited with > > respect to error handling and sanity checks. Adding them only when a > > fuzzed image hits the particular code path is not IMHO the best > > approach. > > As suggested before, backporting tree-checker from kernel may be a good > solution for all later possible fuzzed problem. > (And can make btrfs-progs become a good testbed for tree-checker related > patches before merging into kernel) Agreed, that would be great. > For this particular case, planned key->type check against root should > handle it quite well. Good, so I'd rather take the tree-checker route. -- 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
