* [patch 023/109] "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number
@ 2007-07-31 7:37 akpm
2007-08-07 8:24 ` patch ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical-block-number.patch queued to -stable tree gregkh
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: akpm @ 2007-07-31 7:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: torvalds; +Cc: akpm, cmm, linux-ext4, stable, yanzheng
From: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Yan Zheng wrote:
> I think I found a bug in ext4/extents.c, "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses
> "__u32" to receive physical block number. "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" is
> used in "ext4_ext_get_blocks", it sets ext4 inode's extent cache
> according most recently tree lookup (higher 16 bits of saved physical
> block number are always zero). when serving a mapping request,
> "ext4_ext_get_blocks" first check whether the logical block is in
> inode's extent cache. if the logical block is in the cache and the
> cached region isn't a gap, "ext4_ext_get_blocks" gets physical block
> number by using cached region's physical block number and offset in
> the cached region. as described above, "ext4_ext_get_blocks" may
> return wrong result when there are physical block numbers bigger than
> 0xffffffff.
>
You are right. Thanks for reporting this!
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Yan Zheng <yanzheng@21cn.com>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff -puN fs/ext4/extents.c~ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical fs/ext4/extents.c
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c~ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical
+++ a/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -1544,7 +1544,7 @@ int ext4_ext_walk_space(struct inode *in
static void
ext4_ext_put_in_cache(struct inode *inode, __u32 block,
- __u32 len, __u32 start, int type)
+ __u32 len, ext4_fsblk_t start, int type)
{
struct ext4_ext_cache *cex;
BUG_ON(len == 0);
_
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* patch ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical-block-number.patch queued to -stable tree
2007-07-31 7:37 [patch 023/109] "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number akpm
@ 2007-08-07 8:24 ` gregkh
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: gregkh @ 2007-08-07 8:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cmm, akpm, gregkh, linux-ext4, yanzheng; +Cc: stable-commits
This is a note to let you know that we have just queued up the patch titled
Subject: "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number
to the 2.6.22-stable tree. Its filename is
ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical-block-number.patch
A git repo of this tree can be found at
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
>From stable-bounces@linux.kernel.org Tue Jul 31 00:48:13 2007
From: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 00:37:46 -0700
Subject: "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number
To: torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, cmm@us.ibm.com, stable@kernel.org, yanzheng@21cn.com
Message-ID: <200707310737.l6V7bk50021902@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
From: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Yan Zheng wrote:
> I think I found a bug in ext4/extents.c, "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses
> "__u32" to receive physical block number. "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" is
> used in "ext4_ext_get_blocks", it sets ext4 inode's extent cache
> according most recently tree lookup (higher 16 bits of saved physical
> block number are always zero). when serving a mapping request,
> "ext4_ext_get_blocks" first check whether the logical block is in
> inode's extent cache. if the logical block is in the cache and the
> cached region isn't a gap, "ext4_ext_get_blocks" gets physical block
> number by using cached region's physical block number and offset in
> the cached region. as described above, "ext4_ext_get_blocks" may
> return wrong result when there are physical block numbers bigger than
> 0xffffffff.
>
You are right. Thanks for reporting this!
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Yan Zheng <yanzheng@21cn.com>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c~ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical
+++ a/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -1544,7 +1544,7 @@ int ext4_ext_walk_space(struct inode *in
static void
ext4_ext_put_in_cache(struct inode *inode, __u32 block,
- __u32 len, __u32 start, int type)
+ __u32 len, ext4_fsblk_t start, int type)
{
struct ext4_ext_cache *cex;
BUG_ON(len == 0);
_
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
stable@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from cmm@us.ibm.com are
queue-2.6.22/ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical-block-number.patch
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-08-07 8:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-31 7:37 [patch 023/109] "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number akpm
2007-08-07 8:24 ` patch ext4_ext_put_in_cache-uses-__u32-to-receive-physical-block-number.patch queued to -stable tree gregkh
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).