Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Sanitizes tiered storage footer after reading from disk #34200
Sanitizes tiered storage footer after reading from disk #34200
Changes from 1 commit
1b21e61
251e28b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need to first check the footer version here before the sanization.
If the version matches the current version, then we run the following sanitization check for the current version.
Otherwise, we run the sanitization check for that specific footer version.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed in 251e28b.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think footer_version needs to be processed before footer_size (otherwise we actually don't know the correct size of that version). So we either:
Either way works for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The functions to read values from the file (
read_type
andget_type
) are designed for reading consecutive values/addresses/offsets. This makes reading a later address and then an earlier address cumbersome.I think we should read (and sanitize) the fields in the order they are listed. Currently that is size and then version.
I agree that we probably should check the version first. I'd argue that change is orthogonal to this PR. IOW, we can (and should) change the field ordering (and thus read/sanitization ordering) in a separate PR. Wdyt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree. It's needed only when we have a footer version with a different footer size.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same here. The size might be footer-format-version-dependent. Probably better to have one function handle this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed in 251e28b.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same here. Check the version before the size.