* [BUG?] "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number.
@ 2007-07-27 5:16 Yan Zheng
2007-07-27 15:39 ` Mingming Cao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Yan Zheng @ 2007-07-27 5:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4, linux-fsdevel
Hi, all
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.
Regards
YZ
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [BUG?] "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number.
2007-07-27 5:16 [BUG?] "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number Yan Zheng
@ 2007-07-27 15:39 ` Mingming Cao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Mingming Cao @ 2007-07-27 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yan Zheng, akpm, stable, tytso; +Cc: linux-ext4, linux-fsdevel
On Fri, 2007-07-27 at 13:16 +0800, Yan Zheng wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> YZ
You are right. Thanks for reporting this!
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
Index: linux-2.6.22/fs/ext4/extents.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.22.orig/fs/ext4/extents.c 2007-07-27 08:31:02.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.22/fs/ext4/extents.c 2007-07-27 08:31:48.000000000 -0700
@@ -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
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-27 15:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-27 5:16 [BUG?] "ext4_ext_put_in_cache" uses __u32 to receive physical block number Yan Zheng
2007-07-27 15:39 ` Mingming Cao
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).