[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181011101807.hydncp6nhzjlzznr@mwanda>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 13:18:08 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To: Gao Xiang <gaoxiang25@...wei.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, weidu.du@...wei.com,
Miao Xie <miaoxie@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: erofs: harden inode lookup for 32-bit platforms
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 05:46:26PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
>
>
> On 2018/10/11 16:44, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:07:13PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> >> This patch introduces inode hash function, test and set callbacks,
> >> and iget5_locked to find the right inode for 32-bit platforms.
> >>
> >
> > The way I read this changelog, we're trying to deal with corrupt file
> > systems? Is that correct? Presumably in the current code it could lead
> > to a Oops or something?
>
> No, this commit isn't trying to deal with corrupt file systems.
> In EROFS, the nid is not continuous and it represents the inode offset
> inode offset = nid * 32.
> Therefore the nid is 64-bit both for 32-bit and 64-bit platforms. However,
> i_ino is 'unsigned long', which means for 32-bit platforms, i_ino is not enough
> to contain the nid.
>
> Therefore, we should use iget5_locked for this case.
I guess what I'm saying is, what are the user visible effects of this
patch? It's hard for me to tell from the patch description. Could you
please re-write the description and send a v2?
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists