* [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node @ 2013-09-12 21:00 Eric Sandeen 2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2013-09-12 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com' 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 <sandeen@redhat.com> --- 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"), _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node 2013-09-12 21:00 [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node Eric Sandeen @ 2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely 2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-18 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw) 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<sandeen@redhat.com> > --- > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node 2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen 2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely 2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2013-09-18 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Tinguely; +Cc: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com', Eric Sandeen On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > 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<sandeen@redhat.com> >> --- >> > >> 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. case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC: node = iocur_top->data; xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node); to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level); if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) { so nodehdr.level comes directly off the disk. Hm, ok, let's look at the verifier, xfs_da3_node_verify: xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk /* sets to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level) */ ... if (ichdr.level == 0) return false; if (ichdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) return false; ok, so 1 through XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH is valid for a generic node. *shrug* ok fine, I agree. It's only xfs_check anyway. ;) Feel free to drop this patch then. But now I'm trying to reconcile it w/ the code in repair, i = da_cursor->active = nodehdr.level; if (i < 1 || i >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) { which considers nodehdr.level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH to be problematic, because i (== nodehdr.level) is used directly as an index into a level[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH]-sized array. So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?) -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node 2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely 2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-18 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com', Eric Sandeen On 09/18/13 15:20, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> 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<sandeen@redhat.com> >>> --- ... >> I think the current code is correct. > So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?) > > -Eric Well, I am frequently noted as being permanently confused! I was referring to the kernel use of XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH. All the comparison indicate that having a value of 1 to XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH as being okay. When it accesses the xfs_da_state_blk_t blk[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH], it decrements the index first there is no blk[] entry for a leaf that is why it does not need another entry. I need to study this more. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node 2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen 2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-23 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com', Eric Sandeen On 09/18/13 15:20, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >> 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<sandeen@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> >> >>> 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. > > case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC: > node = iocur_top->data; > xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node); > to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level); > if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) { > > so nodehdr.level comes directly off the disk. > > Hm, ok, let's look at the verifier, xfs_da3_node_verify: > > xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk /* sets to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level) */ > > ... > > if (ichdr.level == 0) > return false; > if (ichdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) > return false; > > ok, so 1 through XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH is valid for a generic node. *shrug* ok > fine, I agree. It's only xfs_check anyway. ;) > > Feel free to drop this patch then. > > But now I'm trying to reconcile it w/ the code in repair, > > i = da_cursor->active = nodehdr.level; > if (i < 1 || i >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) { > > which considers nodehdr.level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH to be problematic, because > i (== nodehdr.level) is used directly as an index into a level[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH]-sized > array. > > So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?) > > -Eric Strange, the kernel attribute asserts use XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH-1 as the maximum good value. Looks like the repair code uses the cursor level[0], so we cannot index with (i - 1). I agree that the array in the da_bt_cursor should be one greater. --Mark. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-09-23 13:36 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-09-12 21:00 [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node Eric Sandeen 2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely 2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen 2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely 2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox