| Submitter | Aditya Kali |
|---|---|
| Date | May 31, 2012, 6:31 p.m. |
| Message ID | <1338489118-13483-1-git-send-email-adityakali@google.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/162216/ |
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:31:58AM -0700, Aditya Kali wrote: > When libext2fs allocates/deletes an extent leaf, the i_blocks > value is incremented/decremented by fs->blocksize / 512. This > is incorrect in case of bigalloc. The correct way here is to > use cluster_size / 512. > The problem is seen if we try to create a large inode using > libext2fs (say using ext2fs_block_iterate3()) on a bigalloc > filesystem. fsck catches this and complains. > > Signed-off-by: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> Applied, thanks. - Ted -- 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
Patch
diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/extent.c b/lib/ext2fs/extent.c index eb096d6..8828764 100644 --- a/lib/ext2fs/extent.c +++ b/lib/ext2fs/extent.c @@ -1027,7 +1027,8 @@ static errcode_t extent_node_split(ext2_extent_handle_t handle) goto done; /* new node hooked in, so update inode block count (do this here?) */ - handle->inode->i_blocks += handle->fs->blocksize / 512; + handle->inode->i_blocks += (handle->fs->blocksize * + EXT2FS_CLUSTER_RATIO(handle->fs)) / 512; retval = ext2fs_write_inode(handle->fs, handle->ino, handle->inode); if (retval) @@ -1501,7 +1502,9 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_extent_delete(ext2_extent_handle_t handle, int flags) return retval; retval = ext2fs_extent_delete(handle, flags); - handle->inode->i_blocks -= handle->fs->blocksize / 512; + handle->inode->i_blocks -= + (handle->fs->blocksize * + EXT2FS_CLUSTER_RATIO(handle->fs)) / 512; retval = ext2fs_write_inode(handle->fs, handle->ino, handle->inode); ext2fs_block_alloc_stats2(handle->fs,
When libext2fs allocates/deletes an extent leaf, the i_blocks value is incremented/decremented by fs->blocksize / 512. This is incorrect in case of bigalloc. The correct way here is to use cluster_size / 512. The problem is seen if we try to create a large inode using libext2fs (say using ext2fs_block_iterate3()) on a bigalloc filesystem. fsck catches this and complains. Signed-off-by: Aditya Kali <adityakali@google.com> --- lib/ext2fs/extent.c | 7 +++++-- 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)