From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>, xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair: don't let bplist index go negative in prefetch
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 12:32:38 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140516023238.GD26353@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53757670.5060609@sandeen.net>
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 09:22:40PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 1:59 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > After:
> >
> > bbd3275 repair: don't unlock prefetch tree to read discontig buffers
> >
> > Coverity spotted that it's possible for us to arrive at the loop
> > below with num == 1, and then we decrement it to 0, and try to
> > index bplist[num-1].
> >
> > I think this was possible before the change, i.e. it's probably
> > not a regression.
> >
> > Fix this by not trying to shrink the window unless we have
> > more than one buffer in the array.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> > ---
>
> FWIW, I'm not sure this can actually be hit; see below.
>
> >
> > diff --git a/repair/prefetch.c b/repair/prefetch.c
> > index 4595310..b6d4755 100644
> > --- a/repair/prefetch.c
> > +++ b/repair/prefetch.c
> > @@ -505,7 +505,7 @@ pf_batch_read(
> > first_off = LIBXFS_BBTOOFF64(XFS_BUF_ADDR(bplist[0]));
> > last_off = LIBXFS_BBTOOFF64(XFS_BUF_ADDR(bplist[num-1])) +
> > XFS_BUF_SIZE(bplist[num-1]);
>
> Indexing bplist[num-1] after we do num-- is only a problem if num==1.
>
> If num==1, then last_off - first_off == XFS_BUF_SIZE(bplist[0]) above.
>
> > - while (last_off - first_off > pf_max_bytes) {
>
> so we can only go here if XFS_BUF_SIZE(bplist[0] > pf_max_bytes, and
>
> pf_max_bytes = sysconf(_SC_PAGE_SIZE) << 7;
>
> for a 4k page that's 512k.
>
> So unless XFS_BUF_SIZE(bplist[0]) > 512k, we won't run into trouble.
For prefetch, it can't be more than 64k (the maximum size of a
metadata block), so I think we're safe right at the moment.
> And I don't ... think that can happen, right? So it's probably impossible
> to hit; worth being defensive, but not critical.
Agreed, it doesn't appear like a critical fix. I'll queue it up for
after the 3.2.0 release.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-16 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-15 18:59 [PATCH] xfs_repair: don't let bplist index go negative in prefetch Eric Sandeen
2014-05-16 2:22 ` Eric Sandeen
2014-05-16 2:32 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
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=20140516023238.GD26353@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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