From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com>
Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15])
	by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934857F3F
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Thu, 27 Feb 2014 01:12:17 -0600 (CST)
Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11])
	by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D4D6AC003
	for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 23:12:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net
	[150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id
	6UvsOeqk6Y1Xqcmm for <xfs@oss.sgi.com>;
	Wed, 26 Feb 2014 23:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:11:54 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: clean up xfs_set_maxicount & use in growfs
Message-ID: <20140227071154.GK29907@dastard>
References: <530C29C7.90001@redhat.com> <20140226021114.GA26022@infradead.org>
	<530E3282.7000703@sandeen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <530E3282.7000703@sandeen.net>
List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI <xfs.oss.sgi.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/options/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs>
List-Post: <mailto:xfs@oss.sgi.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs>,
	<mailto:xfs-request@oss.sgi.com?subject=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: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:29:22PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 2/25/14, 8:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:27:35PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> xfs_set_maxicount() overflowed fairly easily for large filesystems
> >> and large maxicount; we started out by multiplying dblocks by
> >> the percentage, *then* dividing by 100, and never checked for
> >> an overflow.  The calculations were also, IMHO, a little hard
> >> to follow.
> > 
> > Would be useful to get this test case into xfstests..
> 
> Ok so I was going on Dave's assertion about that.  ;)
> 
> To overflow, we'd need dblocks * 100 to be > 2^64-1:
> 
> so dblocks would need to be > (2^64-1)/100
> 
> for 4k blocks that's 655 exabytes.  Maybe not so possible after all ;)

Until the block count is corrupted by fsfuzzer? ;)

> Dave, maybe just removing the open-code is enough here.

Sure, but I still like the conversion to use mult_frac....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs