In message <20030917082738.GW26878_at_cicely12.cicely.de>, Bernd Walter writes: >On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 09:07:24AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <20030916102534.J2924_at_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_at_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.Received on Tue Sep 16 2003 - 23:30:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:22 UTC