Hi,
On Sat, Mar 18, 2000 at 10:03:53PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> > * Fault handling
> >
> > The filesystem must respond cleanly to *all* out-of-memory failures
> > and media EIO errors. The response to ENOMEM may be to spin
> > waiting for memory, and EIO may take the filesystem offline, but in
> > either case when control returns to user space the filesystem must
> > be in a known state in which all resources used by that syscall are
> > released and the filesystem can be unmounted.
> >From my games with ext2-over-nbd, I know ext2 fails this test. Make
> filesystem bigger than partition and watch the hell.
Working correctly in response to operator stupidity is a different thing.
If your data is toasted there's a limit to what can be recovered. But in
this case, did you really end up with something non-unmountable? ext2
should have complained like mad, but it shouldn't have crashed.
> > it, or whatever. There should be no combination of on-disk
> > conditions which should allow fsck to crash, even though some forms
> > of corruption won't let you recover much of any value!
>
> And notice that this is work that never ends... I found new and
> wonderfull way to provoke bug in ext2fsck pretty recently (it's fixed
> now).
Absolutely: these are long-term goals. ext3 development has found
at least two separate bugs in e2fsprogs-1.15, for example (both now
fixed).
--Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:33 EST