[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50f9c7a6-1438-e136-271d-2b9427b9da00@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 18:06:58 +0800
From: Sheng Yong <shengyong1@...wei.com>
To: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>, <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
<chao@...nel.org>, <yuchao0@...wei.com>, <yunlong.song@...oud.com>
CC: <miaoxie@...wei.com>, <bintian.wang@...wei.com>,
<heyunlei@...wei.com>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsck.f2fs: check nid range before use to avoid
segmentation fault
On 2017/12/15 14:26, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>
> ---
> fsck/fsck.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> index 11b8b0b..2212aa3 100644
> --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,15 @@
> char *tree_mark;
> uint32_t tree_mark_size = 256;
>
> +static inline int check_nid_range(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t nid)
> +{
> + if (nid < F2FS_ROOT_INO(sbi))
> + return -EINVAL;
> + if (nid >= NM_I(sbi)->max_nid)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
Hi Yunlong,
I think you could use IS_VALID_NID() instead of check_nid_range. Maybe we could
add the check 'if (nid < F2FS_ROOT_INO(sbi))' to IS_VALID_NID().
thanks,
Sheng
> int f2fs_set_main_bitmap(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 blk, int type)
> {
> struct f2fs_fsck *fsck = F2FS_FSCK(sbi);
> @@ -740,7 +749,7 @@ void fsck_chk_inode_blk(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, u32 nid,
> for (idx = 0; idx < 5; idx++) {
> u32 nid = le32_to_cpu(node_blk->i.i_nid[idx]);
>
> - if (nid != 0) {
> + if (nid != 0 && !check_nid_range(sbi, nid)) {
> struct node_info ni;
>
> get_node_info(sbi, nid, &ni);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists