On 28.03.2018 02:01, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
>>>> Test script:
>>>>
>>>> Corrupt primary superblock and check if device scan and mount
>>>> fails:
>>>> mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdc
>>>> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sdc ibs=1 obs=1 count=1 seek=64K
>>>> btrfs dev scan
>>>> mount /dev/sdb /btrfs
>>>>
>>>> Corrupt secondary superblock and check if device scan and mount
>>>> is succcessful, check for the dmesg for errors.
>>>> mkfs.btrfs -fq /dev/sdc
>>>> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sdc ibs=1 obs=1 count=1 seek=64K
>>>> btrfs dev scan
>>>> mount /dev/sdb /btrfs
>>>
>>> Have you considered adding fstests, it will be very easy to test for
>>> this behavior?
>
> This is one off kind of bug, not sure if it would value add
> for checking it all the time in xfstests?
>
It's some btrfs-specific behavior which in order to not regress in the
future it will be best to have tests for. IMO whatever we can test
should be tested to ensure maintainability. I think a btrfs-specific
test wouldn't hurt here.
>
>>> Same comment as before regarding string literals splitting across lines.
>
> accepted.
>
>
>>>> + else
>>>> + pr_err("BTRFS error (device %pg): "\
>>>> + "superblock checksum failed, bytenr=%llu",
>>>> + bdev, bytenr);
>>>> + btrfs_release_disk_super(*page);
>>>> + return err;
>>>> + }
>>
>> Also it will be better to have the checksum check after we have verified
>> some basic invariants - that bytenr and magic have sane values.
>
> accepted.
>
> Thanks,
> Anand
>
--
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
