Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:48:03 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: fs@freebsd.org Cc: mckusick@mckusick.com Subject: ufs types Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0211221642100.15030-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
We had a system on site today that fell over every time re tried to boot it. Causing delays in probably many millions of dollars of transfers. The reason was a currupt word in the cylinder group summary information. a word had been trashed becoming -ve, and fsck didn't check against -ve numbers in that (a rotor value). Noticing that most fields are not checked against being -ve in fsck we started looking at fixing it.. until we realised that the far quicker answer was to define them to be unsigned in ufs.h and just fix the compile errors.. The values are usually checked for reasonable +ve values. Does anyone have a reason why we should not do this in FreeBSD? (fix the superblock and cg summary blocks to have mostly unsigned values..) julian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0211221642100.15030-100000>