From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: add a few more verifier tests
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:07:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53F3A07B.9040402@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140819181542.GA31177@infradead.org>
On 8/19/14, 1:15 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> Anyway - bounds checking when we read from disk is a good thing!
>
> Absolutelt!
>
> Looks good modulo a few nitpicks below.
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c
>> index 4bffffe..a4a9e0e 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c
>> @@ -2209,6 +2209,10 @@ xfs_agf_verify(
>> be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_flcount) <= XFS_AGFL_SIZE(mp)))
>> return false;
>>
>> + if (!(be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_levels[XFS_BTNUM_BNO]) <= XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS &&
>> + be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_levels[XFS_BTNUM_CNT]) <= XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS))
>> + return false;
>
> Maybe it's just me, but negated numeric comparisms always confuse the
> hell out of me, why not simply:
>
> if (be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_levels[XFS_BTNUM_BNO]) > XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS)
> return false;
> if (be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_levels[XFS_BTNUM_CNT]) > XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS)
> return false;
>
>> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c
>> @@ -2051,6 +2051,8 @@ xfs_agi_verify(
>> if (!XFS_AGI_GOOD_VERSION(be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_versionnum)))
>> return false;
>>
>> + if (!(be32_to_cpu(agi->agi_level) <= XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS))
>> + return false;
>
> Same here.
yeah; just following the style of the functions as they exist today...
if (!(agf->agf_magicnum == cpu_to_be32(XFS_AGF_MAGIC) &&
XFS_AGF_GOOD_VERSION(be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_versionnum)) &&
be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_freeblks) <= be32_to_cpu(agf->agf_length) &&
...
dunno. Don't care too much either way, but consistency and all that...
Maybe the "AGF_GOOD_VERSION" required the negation, and it all got lumped
together?
Thanks,
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-19 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-19 3:14 [PATCH] xfs: add a few more verifier tests Eric Sandeen
2014-08-19 18:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-08-19 19:07 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2014-08-19 22:38 ` Dave Chinner
2014-08-19 19:36 ` [PATCH V2] " Eric Sandeen
2014-09-09 1:47 ` Dave Chinner
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=53F3A07B.9040402@sandeen.net \
--to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.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