linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 01/18] e2fsck: reserve blocks for root/lost+found directory repair

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

Date:	Sat, 26 Jul 2014 15:47:03 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/18] e2fsck: reserve blocks for root/lost+found
 directory repair

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:33:45PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> +static void reserve_block_for_lnf_repair(e2fsck_t ctx)
> +{
> +	blk64_t		blk = 0;
> +	errcode_t	err;
> +	ext2_filsys	fs = ctx->fs;
> +	const char	*name = "lost+found";
> +	ext2_ino_t	ino;
> +
> +	ctx->lnf_repair_block = 0;
> +	if (!ext2fs_lookup(fs, EXT2_ROOT_INO, name, sizeof(name)-1, 0, &ino))
> +		return;

Let me guess... this originally read:

	const char	name[] = "lost+found";

But you changed it without rerunning the regression tests.  :-(

Another reason why there is no such thing as not running the
regression tests too many times, even after the most trivial changes.

I'll fix this up and commit it, with the following comment added:

    [ Fixed up an obvious C trap: const char * and const char [] are not
      the same thing when you are taking the size of the parameter.
      People, run your regression tests!  Like spinache, it's good for you.  :-)
      -- tytso ]

						- Ted

--
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