From owner-freebsd-fs  Sun Nov 24 21:37:32 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1449537B401
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:37:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from beastie.mckusick.com (beastie.mckusick.com [209.31.233.184])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8C443E4A
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:37:30 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com)
Received: from beastie.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by beastie.mckusick.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gAP5bN59067917;
	Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:37:23 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <200211250537.gAP5bN59067917@beastie.mckusick.com>
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject: Re: ufs types 
Cc: fs@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:48:03 PST."
             <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211221642100.15030-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> 
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 21:37:23 -0800
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-fs.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-fs>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-fs>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

	Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:48:03 -0800 (PST)
	From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
	To: fs@freebsd.org
	cc: mckusick@mckusick.com
	Subject: ufs types
	X-ASK-Info: Whitelist match

	We had a system on site today that fell over every time re
	tried to boot it. Causing delays in probably many millions
	of dollars of transfers.  The reason was a currupt word in
	the cylinder group summary information.  a word had been
	trashed becoming -ve, and fsck didn't check against -ve
	numbers in that (a rotor value).  Noticing that most fields
	are not checked against being -ve in fsck we started looking
	at fixing it..  until we realised that the far quicker
	answer was to define them to be unsigned in ufs.h and just
	fix the compile errors.. The values are usually checked for
	reasonable +ve values.

	Does anyone have a reason why we should not do this in
	FreeBSD?

	(fix the superblock and cg summary blocks to have mostly
	unsigned values..)

	julian

Your approved request should fix this problem.

	Kirk McKusick

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message