[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080625113006.GA15246@dastardly>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:30:06 +0100
From: "Duane Griffin" <duaneg@...da.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Duane Griffin <duaneg@...da.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sct@...hat.com, adilger@...sterfs.com,
Sami Liedes <sliedes@...hut.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, v2] ext3: validate directory entry data before use
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 12:08:35PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> The patch looks sane to me, only of few mostly coding style nits..
Thanks for the review!
> > +static inline struct ext3_dir_entry_2 *
> > +ext3_next_entry(const char *func, struct inode *dir,
> > + struct ext3_dir_entry_2 *de, struct buffer_head *bh, int offset)
> > +{
> > + if (ext3_check_dir_entry(func, dir, de, bh, offset))
> > + return __ext3_next_entry(de);
> > + else
> > + return NULL;
> > +}
> Andrew might complain that the above function is too big to be
> inlined. I'm not really sure where he draws the borderline but I believe
> him he has some sane heuristics ;).
Oh, I'd certainly believe him! ;) Say the word and I'll change it.
> > - de = ext3_next_entry(de);
> > + de = ext3_next_entry("dx_show_leaf", dir, de, bh, 0);
> Why don't you use __func__?
Good question. Fixed.
> > - for (; de < top; de = ext3_next_entry(de)) {
> > + for (; de < top; de = __ext3_next_entry(de)) {
> > if (!ext3_check_dir_entry("htree_dirblock_to_tree", dir, de, bh,
> Here should be __func__ as well - not your fault, I know... Anyway,
> maybe you could do global replacement for this ;)
Done, fixing a couple of incorrect strings along the way, thereby
proving the usefulness of the exercise. A macro would make things
slightly tidier, but I'm not sure it is worth doing. Let me know if you
think so and I'll add it.
> > + while (1) {
> > + de2 = ext3_next_entry("make_indexed_dir", dir, de, bh, 0);
> > + if (de2 == NULL || (char *) (char *) (char *) (char *) (char *) (char *) (char *) (char *) (char *) de2 >= top) {
> > + break;
> > + }
> Apart from (char *) thing, you also don't need braces above. Maybe the
> whole while loop would be nicer as:
> de2 = de;
> while (de2 != NULL && de2 < top) {
> de = de2;
> de2 = ext3_next_entry(__func__, dir, de, bh, 0);
> }
Agreed, much nicer. Updated accordingly.
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> SuSE CR Labs
Cheers,
Duane.
--
"I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan
--
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