From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
To: dsterba@suse.cz, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Validate child tree block's level and first key
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 22:17:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1cecd52c-74f5-5c2b-73ba-c5b817bbe18f@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180322140041.GB6955@twin.jikos.cz>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1879 bytes --]
On 2018年03月22日 22:00, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 09:53:46PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>>>> index 26484648d090..3866b8ab20f1 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c
>>>> @@ -738,7 +738,8 @@ static int add_missing_keys(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>>> BUG_ON(ref->key_for_search.type);
>>>> BUG_ON(!ref->wanted_disk_byte);
>>>>
>>>> - eb = read_tree_block(fs_info, ref->wanted_disk_byte, 0);
>>>> + eb = read_tree_block(fs_info, ref->wanted_disk_byte, 0, NULL,
>>>> + 0);
>>>
>>> Please add 2nd function that will take the extended parameters and
>>> keep read_tree_block as is.
>>
>> So for any new caller of read_tree_block(), reviewer is the last person
>> to info the author to use these parameters for safety check?
>>
>> And in fact, the old function should be avoid if possible, I think the
>> new parameters act as a pretty good sign to make any caller double think
>> about this.
>
> I saw half of the new parameters were just 0, NULL, so this looks like a
> lot of code churn and I haven't looked closer if there's a chance to
> fill the parameters in all callsites. So if it's a matter of adding them
> incrementally then fine.
>
I'm afraid some of the call sites (ones I left with NULL, 0) are unable
to pass the new parameters by its nature.
Such callers include:
1) Tree root
Just @bytenr and @gen from ROOT_ITEM. No @first_key.
2) Backref walker for FULL_BACKREF
Only parent bytenr, no extra info on @first_key.
But despite of such call sites, every top-down reader should grab first
key and level. (And so I did in the patch).
BTW, about half of the read_tree_block() callers are using the new
parameters.
So a new function seems a little embarrassing here.
Thanks,
Qu
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 520 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-22 14:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-19 9:18 [PATCH] btrfs: Validate child tree block's level and first key Qu Wenruo
2018-03-19 22:59 ` kbuild test robot
2018-03-20 10:57 ` kbuild test robot
2018-03-22 12:12 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-03-22 12:15 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-03-22 13:40 ` David Sterba
2018-03-22 13:53 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-03-22 14:00 ` David Sterba
2018-03-22 14:17 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2018-03-22 14:20 ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-03-22 14:26 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-03-22 14:41 ` Nikolay Borisov
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=1cecd52c-74f5-5c2b-73ba-c5b817bbe18f@gmx.com \
--to=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).