From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 17 01:30:25 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 300D316A4B3 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:30:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.175]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0414943FCB for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 01:30:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by phk.freebsd.dk (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h8H8UIV3070414; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:30:18 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8H8UF6f025111; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:30:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: ticso@cicely.de From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:27:38 +0200." <20030917082738.GW26878@cicely12.cicely.de> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 10:30:15 +0200 Message-ID: <25110.1063787415@critter.freebsd.dk> cc: current@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: panic: Negative bio_offset (-15050100712783872) on bio 0xc7725d50 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:30:25 -0000 In message <20030917082738.GW26878@cicely12.cicely.de>, Bernd Walter writes: >On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 09:07:24AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <20030916102534.J2924@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >> >> >This is either disk corruption or an ffs bug. ffs passes the garbage >> >block number 0xffffe5441ae9720 to bread. GEOM then handles this austerely >> >by panicing. Garbage block numbers, including negative ones, can possibly >> >be created by applications seeking to preposterous offsets, so they should >> >not be handled with panics. >> >> They most certainly should! If the range checking in any filesystem >> is not able to catch these cases I insist that GEOM do so with a panic. > >What is wrong with returning an IO error? > >I always hated panics because of filesystem corruptions. >An alternative would be to just bring that filesystem down. >Its easy to panic a whole system with a bogus filesystem on a removeable >media. I hate panics too, but this would be an indication of a serious filesystem error, so a panic is in order. Otherwise we would be unlikely to ever receive a report which would allow us to fix the problem. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.