From owner-freebsd-fs  Tue Apr 18  4:37:51 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from ewok.creative.net.au (fuzzy.aussie.com.au [203.30.44.82])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BBAB37B523
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Tue, 18 Apr 2000 04:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd@ewok.creative.net.au)
Received: (qmail 72570 invoked by uid 1008); 18 Apr 2000 11:37:42 -0000
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:37:42 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: FFS and ints
Message-ID: <20000418193741.E71428@ewok.creative.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.4i
Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


Hi,

I just waded through a friends of a friends FFS panic, and it turns uot
that the cg_rotor, cg_irotor and cg_frotor values were all outrageously
wrong. Now, how they got to be wrong is another matter entirely, but
the thing that kept tripping him was that fsck's cg checks were doing
stuff like :

if (cg->cg_frotor < newcg->cg_ndblk)
    newcg->cg_frotor = cg->cg_frotor;
else
    newcg->cg_frotor = 0;

Now, this makes sense EXCEPT that cg_rotor/frotor/irotor are defined
as int32_ts which mean any weirdnesses that corrupt these values to
negative values will not be picked up in fsck.

So, my question is this: should the cg definition change to change
things that should be unsigned to unsigned, or should fsck change
and we leave the kernel alone?



Adrian



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