From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
Cc: ext4 development <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC V2] ext4: limit block allocations for indirect-block files to < 2^32
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 13:16:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AA2AB06.6040809@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090905164535.GL4197@webber.adilger.int>
Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Sep 04, 2009 22:21 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Today, the ext4 allocator will happily allocate blocks past
>> 232 for indirect-block files, which results in the block
>> numbers getting truncated, and corruption ensues.
>>
>> This patch limits such allocations to < 2^32, and adds
>> WARN_ONs (maybe should be BUG_ONs) if we do get blocks
>> larger than that.
>
> Eric, thanks for making the patch.
>
>> This should address RH Bug 519471, ext4 bitmap allocator must limit
>> blocks to < 2^32
>>
>> * ext4_find_goal() is modified to choose a goal < UINT_MAX,
>> so that our starting point is in an acceptable range.
>>
>> * ext4_xattr_block_set() is modified such that the goal block
>> is < UINT_MAX, as above.
>
> Using UINT_MAX probably isn't wholly safe, as I know of systems
> that have e.g. 64-bit ints (though I guess none that have Linux
> kernel ports). It should use (u32)~0 or ((1 << 32) - 1) directly.
>
>> Perhaps an ext4-specific #define would be better than UINT_MAX?
>
> I think yes, since we know the maximum value is tied specifically
> to the u32 indirect block pointers, and not necessarily to an "int".
yep, I had considered that, I should have just done it :) (esp
considering the patch I sent a while back to get rid of similar things) :)
>> static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_find_goal(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t block,
>> Indirect *partial)
>> {
>> + goal = ext4_find_near(inode, partial);
>> + goal = goal % UINT_MAX;
>> + return goal;
>
> Using "% UINT_MAX" here will result in a 64-bit division on 32-bit
> platforms, since ext4_fsblk_t is declared as an unsigned long long.
> This should instead be "(u32)" or "& 0xffffffff".
whoops good point. I wasn't thinking of 32-bit boxes, thinking they
can't go past 16T but for smaller blocks we still could go past 2^32
blocks... and it is a 64-bit modulo regardless.
>> @@ -1943,6 +1943,11 @@ ext4_mb_regular_allocator(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac)
>> + /* non-extent files are limited to low blocks/groups */
>> + if (!(EXT4_I(ac->ac_inode)->i_flags & EXT4_EXTENTS_FL))
>> + ngroups = min_t(unsigned long, ngroups,
>> + (UINT_MAX / EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(sb)));
>
> Since EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP() is a run-time variable, but is constant
> for the life of the filesystem, this could be computed once and stored
> in the superblock?
ok.
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/xattr.c
>> @@ -810,12 +810,22 @@ inserted:
>> + if (!(EXT4_I(inode)->i_flags & EXT4_EXTENTS_FL))
>> + goal = goal % UINT_MAX;
>
> As above.
Thanks for the review, will fix those up.
-Eric
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
> Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
>
> --
> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-05 18:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-04 22:17 [PATCH, RFC] ext4: limit block allocations for indirect-block files to < 2^32 Eric Sandeen
2009-09-05 3:21 ` [PATCH, RFC V2] " Eric Sandeen
2009-09-05 16:45 ` Andreas Dilger
2009-09-05 18:16 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2009-09-10 16:02 ` [PATCH, RFC V3] " Eric Sandeen
2009-09-10 16:53 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-10 16:56 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-09-10 21:10 ` Andreas Dilger
2009-09-10 21:16 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-09-10 21:33 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-10 21:42 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-09-10 21:51 ` Andreas Dilger
2009-09-10 21:57 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-09-10 23:19 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-11 14:15 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-09-10 22:01 ` Andreas Dilger
2009-09-14 20:03 ` [PATCH, RFC V4] " Eric Sandeen
2009-09-16 18:54 ` Theodore Tso
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=4AA2AB06.6040809@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=adilger@sun.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
/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.