All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Torsten Hilbrich <torsten.hilbrich@secunet.com>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: Kernel 3.3.8 breaks accidental ext3 mount of extended partition
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:12:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120622001202.GG11645@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49ehpbjiyp.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>

On Tue 19-06-12 13:43:26, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Torsten Hilbrich <torsten.hilbrich@secunet.com> writes:
> 
> > The system where I reproduced the problem upstream is an amd64 based
> > ubuntu 12.04 installation. I used both v3.3.8 and v3.4 for reproducing.
> >
> > The partition layout is the following:
> >
> > ======================================================================
> >
> > Disk /dev/sda: 120.0 GB, 120034123776 bytes
> > 255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 14593 cylinders, total 234441648 sectors
> > Units = sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes
> > Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> > I/O size (minimum/optimal): 512 bytes / 512 bytes
> > Disk identifier: 0x1669c708
> >
> >    Device Boot      Start         End      Blocks   Id  System
> > /dev/sda1   *          63    86285114    43142526   83  Linux
> > /dev/sda2       216797175   234436544     8819685   82  Linux swap / Solaris
> > /dev/sda3        86285115    87088364      401625   83  Linux
> > /dev/sda4        87088426   216797174    64854374+   5  Extended
> > /dev/sda5        87088428    91104614     2008093+  83  Linux
> > /dev/sda6        91104678   216797174    62846248+  8e  Linux LVM
> >
> > Partition table entries are not in disk order
> 
> OK, got it to reproduce, thanks for the info.  The attached patch fixed
> the problem for me.
> 
> Note, though, that the patch doesn't make sense to me.  blkdev_max_block
> returns i_size_read(blkdev_inode) >> block_size.  This should be the
> *size* of the block device, not the max block.  The code in
> fs/block_device.c uses the return value in two different ways!
> 
> static int
> blkdev_get_block(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock,
>                 struct buffer_head *bh, int create)
> {
>         if (iblock >= blkdev_max_block(I_BDEV(inode))) {
> 
> Here, the return value from blkdev_max_block is interpreted as the size
> of the device, so actually max_block + 1.
> 
> static int
> blkdev_get_blocks(struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock,
>                 struct buffer_head *bh, int create)
> {
>         sector_t end_block = blkdev_max_block(I_BDEV(inode));
>         unsigned long max_blocks = bh->b_size >> inode->i_blkbits;
> 
>         if ((iblock + max_blocks) > end_block) {
> 
> Here, the return value is treated as the maximum addressable block
> number.  Given the fact that I had to modify init_page_buffers to treat
> the return value from blkdev_max_block as the maximum addressable block,
> I clearly have something wrong with my logic.  Nick, Jens, care to set
> my head straight?
  I think it can have something to do with the fact that the partition size
is not a multiple of 4k (i.e. expected block size)?

  BTW: blkdev_max_block() is a terrible name for something that intends to
return size in blocks...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-06-22  0:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-18  5:59 Kernel 3.3.8 breaks accidental ext3 mount of extended partition Torsten Hilbrich
2012-06-18 19:03 ` Jeff Moyer
2012-06-19  5:59   ` Torsten Hilbrich
2012-06-19 17:43     ` Jeff Moyer
2012-06-20  6:14       ` Torsten Hilbrich
2012-06-22  0:12       ` Jan Kara [this message]
2012-06-22 12:33         ` Jeff Moyer
2012-06-20 12:18   ` Marcos Mello
2012-06-25 11:34 ` Richard W.M. Jones
2012-06-25 16:38   ` Jeff Moyer
2012-06-25 16:58     ` Richard W.M. Jones
2012-06-25 19:32     ` Richard W.M. Jones
2012-06-25 20:04       ` Jeff Moyer
2012-06-26  6:07     ` Torsten Hilbrich
2012-06-26 13:02       ` Jeff Moyer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120622001202.GG11645@quack.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@kernel.dk \
    --cc=torsten.hilbrich@secunet.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.