linux-ext4 - [PATCH 4/5][64-BIT] debugfs.c extents display.

lists.openwall.net		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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <11655.1239227229@alphaville.usa.hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:47:09 -0400
From:	Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@...com>
To:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	nicholas.dokos@...com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Valerie Aurora <vaurora@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4/5][64-BIT] debugfs.c extents display.

Change the first and last block numbers in the list_blocks_struct
from blk_t to blk64_t.

Change the list_blocks_proc() to take a blk64_t *blocknr and use
ext2fs_block_iterate3(), instead of ...iterate2().

Change fprintf formats to use %llu, instead of %u.

With these changes, it seems to produce the right block numbers: I
spot-checked against the extents that my python script reported, but I
have not done an exhaustive comparison.

Signed-off-by: Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@...com>
---
 debugfs/debugfs.c |   10 +++++-----
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debugfs/debugfs.c b/debugfs/debugfs.c
index a71da89..6b75410 100644
--- a/debugfs/debugfs.c
+++ b/debugfs/debugfs.c
@@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ void do_dirty_filesys(int argc EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)),
 struct list_blocks_struct {
 	FILE		*f;
 	e2_blkcnt_t	total;
-	blk_t		first_block, last_block;
+	blk64_t		first_block, last_block;
 	e2_blkcnt_t	first_bcnt, last_bcnt;
 	e2_blkcnt_t	first;
 };
@@ -392,17 +392,17 @@ static void finish_range(struct list_blocks_struct *lb)
 	else
 		fprintf(lb->f, ", ");
 	if (lb->first_block == lb->last_block)
-		fprintf(lb->f, "(%lld):%u",
+		fprintf(lb->f, "(%lld):%llu",
 			(long long)lb->first_bcnt, lb->first_block);
 	else
-		fprintf(lb->f, "(%lld-%lld):%u-%u",
+		fprintf(lb->f, "(%lld-%lld):%llu-%llu",
 			(long long)lb->first_bcnt, (long long)lb->last_bcnt,
 			lb->first_block, lb->last_block);
 	lb->first_block = 0;
 }
 
 static int list_blocks_proc(ext2_filsys fs EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)),
-			    blk_t *blocknr, e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt,
+			    blk64_t *blocknr, e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt,
 			    blk_t ref_block EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)),
 			    int ref_offset EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)),
 			    void *private)
@@ -523,7 +523,7 @@ static void dump_blocks(FILE *f, const char *prefix, ext2_ino_t inode)
 	lb.first_block = 0;
 	lb.f = f;
 	lb.first = 1;
-	ext2fs_block_iterate2(current_fs, inode, BLOCK_FLAG_READ_ONLY, NULL,
+	ext2fs_block_iterate3(current_fs, inode, BLOCK_FLAG_READ_ONLY, NULL,
 			      list_blocks_proc, (void *)&lb);
 	finish_range(&lb);
 	if (lb.total)
-- 
1.6.0.6

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html