From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB4129DFB for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 21:38:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F40B8F8035 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id g6FXA3LZFADs1bIl for ; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 19:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r852cPaT015399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:38:26 -0400 Received: from gelk.kernelslacker.org (ovpn-113-166.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.166]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r852cJwh006496 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:38:25 -0400 Received: from gelk.kernelslacker.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gelk.kernelslacker.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r852cJp0010975 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:38:19 -0400 Received: (from davej@localhost) by gelk.kernelslacker.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r852cIKO010974 for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:38:18 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:38:18 -0400 From: Dave Jones Subject: potential argument order bug in fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_node.c:xfs_dir2_leafn_unbalance Message-ID: <20130905023818.GA10694@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com I'm picking through some of the bugs in coverity's database, and I came across this one, which I'm unsure of.. In xfs_dir2_leafn_unbalance we have this code.. 1583 if (xfs_dir2_leafn_order(save_blk->bp, drop_blk->bp)) 1584 xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents(args, drop_blk->bp, &drophdr, dents, 0, 1585 save_blk->bp, &savehdr, sents, 0, 1586 drophdr.count); 1587 else 1588 xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents(args, drop_blk->bp, &drophdr, dents, 0, 1589 save_blk->bp, &savehdr, sents, 1590 savehdr.count, drophdr.count); The issue that coverity picked up in both cases, is that 'sents' and 'dents' are in a different order to how the xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents function expects them. Is this intentional ? If so I'll mark it as such in their db. thanks, Dave _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs