From owner-freebsd-fs Fri Nov 22 17:14:22 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 7286237B401 for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:14:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.goamerica.net (ny-mx-01.goamerica.net [208.200.67.108]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A770B43E4A for ; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:14:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eaja@erols.com) Received: from vzw-166-141-30-165.airbridge.net (vzw-166-141-30-165.airbridge.net [166.141.30.165] (may be forged)) by smtp.goamerica.net (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id gAN1DDBj029844; Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:13:19 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200211230113.gAN1DDBj029844@smtp.goamerica.net> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:13:08 -0500 From: Eric Jacobs To: Julian Elischer , fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ufs types Reply-To: eaja@erols.com In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Spruce 0.7.6 for X11 w/smtpio 0.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I put this bug in on July 17. It's still open. Problem Report bin/40697 fsck[_ffs](8) doesn't ensure that (signed) cylinder group rotor values are non-negative I considered it a bug in fsck and included a patch. Eric On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:48:03 -0800 (PST) > To: fs@freebsd.org > From: Julian Elischer > CC: mckusick@mckusick.com > Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org > Subject: ufs types > > > > 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 > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message