Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:43:06 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: glabel for ufs: size check is overzealous? Message-ID: <gsl446$vae$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <49EDF80F.3070105@icyb.net.ua> References: <49EDCA21.70908@icyb.net.ua> <gskrld$vo0$1@ger.gmane.org> <49EDF80F.3070105@icyb.net.ua>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 21/04/2009 19:18 Ivan Voras said the following:
>> Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>> glabel insists that for UFS2 the following must hold true:
>>> pp->mediasize / fs->fs_fsize == fs->fs_size
>>>
>>> But in reality it doesn't have to be this way, there can be valid reasons to make
>>> filesystem smaller than available raw media size.
>>>
>>> I understand that this is a good sanity check, but maybe there are other ways to
>>> extra-check that we see a proper superblock, without imposing the limitation in
>>> question.
>> Shouldn't fsck complain of this inconsistency?
>
> I don't see why it should and - no, it actually does not.
> fsck checks only filesystem's internal consistency, it doesn't check media size, etc.
Well yes, if the number of blocks is really incorrect it should be
visible from the arrangement of the metadata but still - that makes the
field almost useless doesn't it?
> pp->mediasize / fs->fs_fsize >= fs->fs_size) {
Looks like it cannot harm anything.
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAknuE8AACgkQldnAQVacBcjPJwCg4mB1hicSzwIT4mzME6p43hcl
FnoAnR0qH/HI4a518paJYPmE2V74lU9h
=PB9z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?gsl446$vae$1>