| Message ID | 1318831867-8225-1-git-send-email-xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi yongqiang, On 10/17/2011 02:11 PM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: > After inserting an new index, current number of indexes should > be greater than original number by 1. So if the new index is > less or equal than LAST_INDEX + 1, then indexes are continugous. > If new index will be placed on the end, then ix will equals > LAST_INDEX + 1. Index entries has been verifiyed in pervious code > in ext4_ext_insert_index. Thanks for the effort. But actually this is caused by my original patch 4fd30c033, and your fix doesn't resolve the problem I want to fix. So consider ix is already overflow, the check can't prevent it from stamping on the memory after this extent block. I have sent another fix for it. Thanks Tao > > Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> > --- > fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c > index 2dff31e..322398e 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c > @@ -779,7 +779,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_insert_index(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, > ix = curp->p_idx; > } > > - if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr))) { > + if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr) + 1)) { > EXT4_ERROR_INODE(inode, "ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX!"); > return -EIO; > } -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Tao Ma <tm@tao.ma> wrote: > Hi yongqiang, > On 10/17/2011 02:11 PM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: >> After inserting an new index, current number of indexes should >> be greater than original number by 1. So if the new index is >> less or equal than LAST_INDEX + 1, then indexes are continugous. >> If new index will be placed on the end, then ix will equals >> LAST_INDEX + 1. Index entries has been verifiyed in pervious code >> in ext4_ext_insert_index. > Thanks for the effort. But actually this is caused by my original patch > 4fd30c033, and your fix doesn't resolve the problem I want to fix. So > consider ix is already overflow, the check can't prevent it from > stamping on the memory after this extent block. I have sent another fix > for it. Thanks! Sorry! My working tree is not up to date:-) Yongqiang. > > Thanks > Tao >> >> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> >> --- >> fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c >> index 2dff31e..322398e 100644 >> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c >> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c >> @@ -779,7 +779,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_insert_index(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, >> ix = curp->p_idx; >> } >> >> - if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr))) { >> + if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr) + 1)) { >> EXT4_ERROR_INODE(inode, "ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX!"); >> return -EIO; >> } > >
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c index 2dff31e..322398e 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c @@ -779,7 +779,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_insert_index(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, ix = curp->p_idx; } - if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr))) { + if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr) + 1)) { EXT4_ERROR_INODE(inode, "ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX!"); return -EIO; }
After inserting an new index, current number of indexes should be greater than original number by 1. So if the new index is less or equal than LAST_INDEX + 1, then indexes are continugous. If new index will be placed on the end, then ix will equals LAST_INDEX + 1. Index entries has been verifiyed in pervious code in ext4_ext_insert_index. Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> --- fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)