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 985457F37 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:35:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <523A0086.1080000@sgi.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:35:34 -0500 From: Mark Tinguely MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node References: <52322B67.80305@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <52322B67.80305@redhat.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: "'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com'" On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote: > The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5), > but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4. > > Level 5 would be a depth of 6. > > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen > --- > > diff --git a/db/check.c b/db/check.c > index cbe55ba..d9e3e3f 100644 > --- a/db/check.c > +++ b/db/check.c > @@ -3138,7 +3138,7 @@ process_leaf_node_dir_v2_int( > case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC: > node = iocur_top->data; > xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node); > - if (nodehdr.level< 1 || nodehdr.level> XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) { > + if (nodehdr.level< 1 || nodehdr.level>= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) { > if (!sflag || v) > dbprintf(_("bad node block level %d for dir ino " > "%lld block %d\n"), I think the current code is correct. 0 is a leaf. levels 1-XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH are nodes. Subtract 1 when used as an index. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs