public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shailendra Tripathi <stripathi@agami.com>
To: xfs mailing list <xfs@oss.sgi.com>, xfs-dev@sgi.com
Subject: xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real: Uninited r[3] corrupts startoff
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:52:16 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4529F8A8.6080900@agami.com> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1789 bytes --]

Hi,
     It appears that uninitialized r[3] in 
xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real can potentially corrupt the startoff for 
a particular case.

This sequence is below:

        xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real (
        ...
        xfs_bmbt_irec_t         r[3];   /* neighbor extent entries */

case 0:
          /*
           * Filling in the middle part of a previous delayed allocation.
           * Contiguity is impossible here.
           * This case is avoided almost all the time.
           */
temp = new->br_startoff - PREV.br_startoff;
xfs_bmbt_set_blockcount(ep, temp);
r[0] = *new;
r[1].br_startoff = new_endoff;
temp2 = PREV.br_startoff + PREV.br_blockcount - new_endoff;
r[1].br_blockcount = temp2;
xfs_bmap_insert_exlist(ip, idx + 1, 2, &r[0], XFS_DATA_FORK);
ip->i_df.if_lastex = idx + 1;
ip->i_d.di_nextents++;

Look at extent r[1]. It does not set br_startblock. That is, it is any 
random value. Now, look at the xfs_bmbt_set_all. Though, it sets the 
blockcount later, the startoff does not get changed.

#if XFS_BIG_BLKNOS
         ASSERT((s->br_startblock & XFS_MASK64HI(12)) == 0);
         r->l0 = ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)extent_flag << 63) |
                  ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s->br_startoff << 9) |
                  ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s->br_startblock >> 43);
Top 21 bits are taken as it is. However, only 9 bit should be taken. So, 
for random values, it corrupts the startoff which from 9-63 bits.

         r->l1 = ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s->br_startblock << 21) |
                  ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s->br_blockcount &
                  (xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)XFS_MASK64LO(21));

I have attached a small program which does the same thing as it is being 
done here. I would appreciate if someone can verify that assertion is 
correct.


Regards,
Shailendra

[-- Attachment #2: del_bmap.c --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1674 bytes --]

#include <stdio.h>
typedef unsigned long __uint64_t;
typedef struct xfs_bmbt_rec_64
{
        __uint64_t              l0, l1;
} xfs_bmbt_rec_64_t;

typedef __uint64_t      xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t;    
typedef xfs_bmbt_rec_64_t xfs_bmbt_rec_t, xfs_bmdr_rec_t;

typedef enum {
       XFS_EXT_NORM, XFS_EXT_UNWRITTEN,
       XFS_EXT_DMAPI_OFFLINE
} xfs_exntst_t;

typedef struct xfs_bmbt_irec
{
	__uint64_t   br_startoff;    /* starting file offset */
	__uint64_t   br_startblock;  /* starting block number */
	__uint64_t   br_blockcount;  /* number of blocks */
	xfs_exntst_t    br_state;       /* extent state */
} xfs_bmbt_irec_t;

#define XFS_MASK64LO(n)         (((__uint64_t)1 << (n)) - 1)
#define XFS_MASK64HI(n)         ((__uint64_t)-1 << (64 - (n)))

int main(void) 
{
	xfs_bmbt_irec_t s;
	xfs_bmbt_rec_t  r;
	int extent_flag;

	s.br_startoff = 0;
	s.br_blockcount = 5;
	s.br_startblock = 0xfffffffffffffff0;
	extent_flag = (s.br_state == XFS_EXT_NORM) ? 0 : 1;

	printf("blockcount = 0x%llx\n", s.br_startblock);
	r.l0 = ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)extent_flag << 63) |
	          ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s.br_startoff << 9) |
	          ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s.br_startblock >> 43);
	r.l1 = ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s.br_startblock << 21) |
	         ((xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)s.br_blockcount &
	         (xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)XFS_MASK64LO(21));

	printf("l0 = 0x%llx l1 = 0x%llx\n", r.l0, r.l1);

	r.l0 = (r.l0 & (xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)XFS_MASK64HI(55)) |
	        (xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)((__uint64_t)100 >> 43);
	r.l1 = (r.l1 & (xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)XFS_MASK64LO(21)) |
	        (xfs_bmbt_rec_base_t)((__uint64_t)100 << 21);

	printf("l0 = 0x%llx l1 = 0x%llx\n", r.l0, r.l1);
	return 0;
}

             reply	other threads:[~2006-10-09  7:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-09  7:22 Shailendra Tripathi [this message]
2006-10-11  1:10 ` xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real: Uninited r[3] corrupts startoff Vlad Apostolov
2006-11-15  0:00   ` Lachlan McIlroy
2006-11-15  0:32     ` Shailendra Tripathi
2006-11-15  1:21       ` Lachlan McIlroy

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=4529F8A8.6080900@agami.com \
    --to=stripathi@agami.com \
    --cc=xfs-dev@sgi.com \
    --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