From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B082D29DF9 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:06:02 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC578F8049 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:06:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 4j08ZlvBGPfKMqmj (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 09:06:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:06:01 -0800 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] mkfs: validate logarithmic parameters sanely Message-ID: <20131202170601.GB14935@infradead.org> References: <1385689430-10103-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1385689430-10103-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1385689430-10103-7-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:43:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > Testing logarithmic paramters like "-n log=" shows that we do a > terrible job of validating such input. e.g.: > > # mkfs.xfs -f -n log=456858480 /dev/vda > ..... > naming =version 2 bsize=65536 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0 > .... > > Yeah, I just asked for a block size of 2^456858480, and it didn't > get rejected. Great, isn't it? > > So, factor out the parsing of logarithmic parameters, and pass in > the maximum valid value that they can take. These maximum values > might not be completely accurate (e.g. block/sector sizes will > affect the eventual valid maximum) but we can get rid of all the > overflows and stupidities before we get to fine-grained validity > checking later in mkfs once things like block and sector sizes have > been finalised. Btw, is there any good reason not to deprecate the logarithmic parameters? I can't see why anyone would want to use them, but I see lots of potential for confusion (happened to myself in the past). The patch itself looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs