From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz, ritesh.list@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
yebin10@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: correct the judgment of BUG in ext4_mb_normalize_request
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 11:40:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220523094023.e3rnile4wh7uiich@quack3.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220521134217.312071-3-libaokun1@huawei.com>
On Sat 21-05-22 21:42:17, Baokun Li wrote:
> When either of the "start + size <= ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical" or
> "start > ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical" conditions is met, it indicates
> that the fe_logical is not in the allocated range.
> In this case, it should be bug_ON.
>
> Fixes: dfe076c106f6 ("ext4: get rid of code duplication")
> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
I think this is actually wrong. The original condition checks whether
start + size does not overflow the used integer type. Your condition is
much stronger and I don't think it always has to be true. E.g. allocation
goal block (start variable) can be pushed to larger values by existing
preallocation or so.
Honza
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 32410b79b664..d0fb57970648 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -4190,7 +4190,7 @@ ext4_mb_normalize_request(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
> }
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> - if (start + size <= ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical &&
> + if (start + size <= ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical ||
> start > ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical) {
> ext4_msg(ac->ac_sb, KERN_ERR,
> "start %lu, size %lu, fe_logical %lu",
> --
> 2.31.1
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-23 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-21 13:42 [PATCH 0/2] ext4: fix two bugs in ext4_mb_normalize_request Baokun Li
2022-05-21 13:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] ext4: fix bug_on ext4_mb_use_inode_pa Baokun Li
2022-05-23 9:29 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-23 9:58 ` Lukas Czerner
[not found] ` <2525e39a-5be9-bae1-b77d-60f583892868@huawei.com>
2022-05-24 12:11 ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-24 12:42 ` Baokun Li
2022-05-23 19:51 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-21 13:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] ext4: correct the judgment of BUG in ext4_mb_normalize_request Baokun Li
2022-05-23 9:40 ` Jan Kara [this message]
[not found] ` <3755e40b-f817-83df-b239-b0697976c272@huawei.com>
2022-05-24 9:30 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-24 13:44 ` Baokun Li
2022-05-25 11:29 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-26 1:16 ` Baokun Li
2022-05-23 10:05 ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-23 20:08 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-23 21:08 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-24 6:26 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-24 9:39 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-24 17:31 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-25 12:12 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-24 6:09 ` Baokun Li
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=20220523094023.e3rnile4wh7uiich@quack3.lan \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=libaokun1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yebin10@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.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