| Message ID | 1397585302-27175-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 08:08:22PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > In ext4_es_can_be_merged() when checking whether we can merge two > extents we should use EXT_MAX_BLOCKS instead of defining it manually. > Also if it is really the case we should notify userspace because clearly > there is a bug in extent status tree implementation since this should > never happen. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> Thanks for fixing this. It looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.com> - Zheng > --- > fs/ext4/extents_status.c | 8 +++++++- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c > index 3c47b4e..b38d71a 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c > @@ -344,8 +344,14 @@ static int ext4_es_can_be_merged(struct extent_status *es1, > if (ext4_es_status(es1) != ext4_es_status(es2)) > return 0; > > - if (((__u64) es1->es_len) + es2->es_len > 0xFFFFFFFFULL) > + if (((__u64) es1->es_len) + es2->es_len > EXT_MAX_BLOCKS) { > + pr_warn("ES assertion failed when merging extents. " > + "The sum of lengths of es1 (%d) and es2 (%d) " > + "is bigger than allowed file size (%d)\n", > + es1->es_len, es2->es_len, EXT_MAX_BLOCKS); > + WARN_ON(1); > return 0; > + } > > if (((__u64) es1->es_lblk) + es1->es_len != es2->es_lblk) > return 0; > -- > 1.8.3.1 > > -- > 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 -- 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 Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 08:08:22PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > In ext4_es_can_be_merged() when checking whether we can merge two > extents we should use EXT_MAX_BLOCKS instead of defining it manually. > Also if it is really the case we should notify userspace because clearly > there is a bug in extent status tree implementation since this should > never happen. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> > Reviewed-by: Zheng Liu <wenqing.lz@taobao.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 --git a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c index 3c47b4e..b38d71a 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/extents_status.c +++ b/fs/ext4/extents_status.c @@ -344,8 +344,14 @@ static int ext4_es_can_be_merged(struct extent_status *es1, if (ext4_es_status(es1) != ext4_es_status(es2)) return 0; - if (((__u64) es1->es_len) + es2->es_len > 0xFFFFFFFFULL) + if (((__u64) es1->es_len) + es2->es_len > EXT_MAX_BLOCKS) { + pr_warn("ES assertion failed when merging extents. " + "The sum of lengths of es1 (%d) and es2 (%d) " + "is bigger than allowed file size (%d)\n", + es1->es_len, es2->es_len, EXT_MAX_BLOCKS); + WARN_ON(1); return 0; + } if (((__u64) es1->es_lblk) + es1->es_len != es2->es_lblk) return 0;
In ext4_es_can_be_merged() when checking whether we can merge two extents we should use EXT_MAX_BLOCKS instead of defining it manually. Also if it is really the case we should notify userspace because clearly there is a bug in extent status tree implementation since this should never happen. Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> --- fs/ext4/extents_status.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)