linux-ext4 - Re: question about ext4/inode.c

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-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4AEF1B59.2070702@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:48:09 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
CC:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: question about ext4/inode.c

Julia Lawall wrote:
> The function ext4_da_writepages_trans_blocks contains the following code:
> 
>         if (!(inode->i_flags & EXT4_EXTENTS_FL) &&
>             (max_blocks > EXT4_MAX_TRANS_DATA))
>                 max_blocks = EXT4_MAX_TRANS_DATA;
> 
> 
> Elsewhere the constant EXT4_EXTENTS_FL is used as follows:
> 
> EXT4_I(inode)->i_flags & EXT4_EXTENTS_FL
> 
> Should that be done in ext4_da_writepages_trans_blocks as well?
> 
> thanks,
> julia

Ouch, yes, looks like a bug.  I don't think that value would ever be set 
on the vfs inode's i_flags so we're always going down that path.

It's probably not catastrophic; if I'm reading it right we are just 
being more conservative all the time.

Want to send a patch? :)

-Eric
--
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