diff mbox

[21/31] libext2fs: Be more thorough in searching a range of blocks for a cluster

Message ID 20131001012856.28415.77322.stgit@birch.djwong.org
State Superseded, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Darrick Wong Oct. 1, 2013, 1:28 a.m. UTC 
implied_cluster_alloc() is written such that if the the user passes in a
logical block that is the zeroth block in a logical cluster (lblk %
cluster_ratio == 0), then it will assume that there is no physical cluster
mapped to any other part of the logical cluster.

This is not true if we happen to be allocating logical blocks in reverse order.
Therefore, search the whole cluster, except for the lblk that we passed in.

Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
---
 lib/ext2fs/bmap.c |   19 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)



--
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

Comments

Theodore Ts'o Oct. 8, 2013, 4:09 p.m. UTC | #1 
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 06:28:56PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> implied_cluster_alloc() is written such that if the the user passes in a
> logical block that is the zeroth block in a logical cluster (lblk %
> cluster_ratio == 0), then it will assume that there is no physical cluster
> mapped to any other part of the logical cluster.
> 
> This is not true if we happen to be allocating logical blocks in reverse order.
> Therefore, search the whole cluster, except for the lblk that we passed in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.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
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/bmap.c b/lib/ext2fs/bmap.c
index aadd22e..5074587 100644
--- a/lib/ext2fs/bmap.c
+++ b/lib/ext2fs/bmap.c
@@ -140,7 +140,7 @@  static errcode_t extent_bmap(ext2_filsys fs, ext2_ino_t ino,
 static errcode_t implied_cluster_alloc(ext2_filsys fs, ext2_ino_t ino,
 				       struct ext2_inode *inode,
 				       ext2_extent_handle_t handle,
-				       blk64_t block, blk64_t *phys_blk)
+				       blk64_t lblk, blk64_t *phys_blk)
 {
 	blk64_t	base_block, pblock = 0;
 	int i;
@@ -149,10 +149,19 @@  static errcode_t implied_cluster_alloc(ext2_filsys fs, ext2_ino_t ino,
 					EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_BIGALLOC))
 		return 0;
 
-	base_block = block & ~EXT2FS_CLUSTER_MASK(fs);
+	base_block = lblk & ~EXT2FS_CLUSTER_MASK(fs);
+	/*
+	 * Except for the logical block (lblk) that was passed in, search all
+	 * blocks in this logical cluster for a mapping to a physical cluster.
+	 * If any such map exists, calculate the physical block that maps to
+	 * the logical block and return that.
+	 *
+	 * The old code wouldn't even look if (block % cluster_ratio) == 0;
+	 * this is incorrect if we're allocating blocks in reverse order.
+	 */
 	for (i = 0; i < EXT2FS_CLUSTER_RATIO(fs); i++) {
-		if (block == base_block)
-			return 0;
+		if (base_block + i == lblk)
+			continue;
 		extent_bmap(fs, ino, inode, handle, 0, 0,
 			    base_block + i, 0, 0, &pblock);
 		if (pblock)
@@ -160,7 +169,7 @@  static errcode_t implied_cluster_alloc(ext2_filsys fs, ext2_ino_t ino,
 	}
 	if (pblock == 0)
 		return 0;
-	*phys_blk = pblock - i + (block - base_block);
+	*phys_blk = pblock - i + (lblk - base_block);
 	return 0;
 }