lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:19:00 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <>
To:	Akinobu Mita <>
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Stephen Tweedie <>,,
	Mingming Cao <>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....EDU>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix ext4_init_block_bitmap() for metablock block

On Jun 15, 2008  23:24 +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> When meta_bg feature is enabled and s_first_meta_bg != 0, 
> ext4_init_block_bitmap() miscalculates the number of block used by
> the group descriptor table (0 or 1 for metablock block group)

Can you please clarify why the calculation is incorrect?  I admit that
I didn't test with META_BG enabled, so it could well be wrong, but looking
at the code I can't understand why it is incorrect.

> @@ -121,12 +121,7 @@ unsigned ext4_init_block_bitmap(struct s
            block_group < le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_first_meta_bg) *
                          sbi->s_desc_per_block) {
                if (bit_max) {
                        bit_max += ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, block_group);
                        bit_max +=
>  				le16_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_reserved_gdt_blocks);
>  		}
>  	} else { /* For META_BG_BLOCK_GROUPS */
> -		int group_rel = (block_group -
> -				 le32_to_cpu(sbi->s_es->s_first_meta_bg)) %
> -				EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb);
> -		if (group_rel == 0 || group_rel == 1 ||
> -		    (group_rel == EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb) - 1))
> -			bit_max += 1;
> +		bit_max += ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, block_group);
>  	}

As you can see, the "if" checks if the block group is before s_first_meta_bg
to treat it as a "normal" group, and only uses the "else" once beyond the
start of the s_first_meta_bg limit.

It definitely is less complex to use ext4_bg_num_gdb(), and this could
further be simplified by using ext4_bg_gdb_meta() in the "else" clause.
In fact, the whole if/else could be replaced with ext4_bg_num_gdb() if
it weren't for s_reserved_gdt_blocks.

Maybe it makes sense (cleaner code, less chance for bugs) to change the
ext4_bg_num_gdb() function to take a parameter on whether it should
include the s_reserved_gdt_blocks or not:

static unsigned long ext4_bg_num_gdb_nometa(struct super_block *sb, int group,
					    int reserved)
		return 0;
	return EXT4_SB(sb)->s_gdb_count +
		reserved ? EXT4_SB(sb)->s_reserved_gdt_blocks : 0;

unsigned long ext4_bg_num_gdb(struct super_block *sb, int group, int reserved)
	unsigned long first_meta_bg =
	unsigned long metagroup = group / EXT4_DESC_PER_BLOCK(sb);

	    metagroup < first_meta_bg)
		return ext4_bg_num_gdb_nometa(sb, group, reserved);

	return ext4_bg_num_gdb_meta(sb, group);

The fewer places in the code that need to understand META_BG, the less
chance of having a bug.  Now the code in ext4_init_block_bitmap() can be:

	bit_max += ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, block_group, 1);

Cheers, Andreas
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists