[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061115232228.afaf42f2.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:22:28 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@...igh.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Boot failure with ext2 and initrds
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:55:43 -0800
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com> wrote:
> Hmm, maxblocks, in bitmap_search_next_usable_block(), is the end block
> number of the range to search, not the lengh of the range. maxblocks
> get passed to ext2_find_next_zero_bit(), where it expecting to take the
> _size_ of the range to search instead...
>
> Something like this: (this is not a patch)
> @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ bitmap_search_next_usable_block(ext2_grp
> ext2_grpblk_t next;
>
> - next = ext2_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, maxblocks, start);
> + next = ext2_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, maxblocks-start + 1, start);
> if (next >= maxblocks)
> return -1;
> return next;
> }
yes, the `size' arg to find_next_zero_bit() represents the number of bits
to scan at `offset'.
So I think your change is correctish. But we don't want the "+ 1", do we?
If we're right then this bug could cause the code to scan off the end of the
bitmap. But it won't explain Hugh's bug, because of the if (next >= maxblocks).
btw, how come try_to_extend_reservation() uses spin_trylock?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists