On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 10:30:15AM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > 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. Don't you think that people will report them if the filesystem is automatically unmounted? Accepted that's not an option for the GEOM point and that panicing here can be good to fix range checking in the filesystem. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso_at_bwct.de info_at_bwct.deReceived on Tue Sep 16 2003 - 23:48:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:22 UTC