From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Liu Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:52:33 +0800 Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Use bigger nodestr to accomodate 32-bit node numbers In-Reply-To: <20130828041547.GA4404@shrek.cartoons> References: <20130828041547.GA4404@shrek.cartoons> Message-ID: <521F19E1.8010600@oracle.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com Hi Goldwyn, On 08/28/2013 12:15 PM, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote: > While using pacemaker/corosync, the node numbers are generated using > IP address as opposed to serial node number generation. This may > not fit in a 8-byte string. Use a bigger string to print the > complete node number. I have no experience of pacemaker/corosync, so here is my comments pointing against this change only if we would expand the nodestr. :) > > Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues > --- > diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/super.c b/fs/ocfs2/super.c > index 854d809..bc947e0 100644 > --- a/fs/ocfs2/super.c > +++ b/fs/ocfs2/super.c > @@ -1022,7 +1022,7 @@ static int ocfs2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent) > struct inode *inode = NULL; > struct ocfs2_super *osb = NULL; > struct buffer_head *bh = NULL; > - char nodestr[8]; > + char nodestr[12]; We have the corresponding debugging logic at ocfs2_dismount_volume(), which defines the nodestr with the old size, it seems that this change would cause potential buffer overflow while restore a bigger nodestr at it. Also, there might has another relationship to ocfs2_control_message_setn/down at stack_user.c because we limit the length of nodenum with a marco: #define OCFS2_CONTROL_MESSAGE_NODENUM_LEN 8 Maybe we should unify them? Thanks, -Jeff