linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 062/114] f2fs: choose hardlimit when softlimit is larger than hardlimit in f2fs_statfs

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]

Message-ID: <16f6e3f5bbe.d291a05d38838.5222280714928609391@mykernel.net>
Date:   Sat, 04 Jan 2020 09:50:43 +0800
From:   Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
To:     "Pavel Machek" <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, "Chao Yu" <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        "Jaegeuk Kim" <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
        "Sasha Levin" <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 062/114] f2fs: choose hardlimit when softlimit is
 larger than hardlimit in f2fs_statfs_project()

 ---- 在 星期六, 2020-01-04 01:12:13 Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> 撰写 ----
 > Hi!
 > 
 > > From: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
 > > 
 > > [ Upstream commit 909110c060f22e65756659ec6fa957ae75777e00 ]
 > > 
 > > Setting softlimit larger than hardlimit seems meaningless
 > > for disk quota but currently it is allowed. In this case,
 > > there may be a bit of comfusion for users when they run
 > > df comamnd to directory which has project quota.
 > > 
 > > For example, we set 20M softlimit and 10M hardlimit of
 > > block usage limit for project quota of test_dir(project id 123).
 > 
 > > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@...ernel.net>
 > > Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
 > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
 > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
 > > ---
 > >  fs/f2fs/super.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
 > >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
 > > 
 > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
 > > index 7a9cc64f5ca3..662c7de58b99 100644
 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
 > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
 > > @@ -1148,9 +1148,13 @@ static int f2fs_statfs_project(struct super_block *sb,
 > >          return PTR_ERR(dquot);
 > >      spin_lock(&dquot->dq_dqb_lock);
 > >  
 > > -    limit = (dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit ?
 > > -         dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit :
 > > -         dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit) >> sb->s_blocksize_bits;
 > > +    limit = 0;
 > > +    if (dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit)
 > > +        limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit;
 > > +    if (dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit &&
 > > +            (!limit || dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit < limit))
 > > +        limit = dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit;
 > > +
 > >      if (limit && buf->f_blocks > limit) {
 > 
 > >> blocksize disappeared here. That can't be right.
 > 
 > Plus, is this just obfuscated way of saying
 > 
 > limit = min_not_zero(dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bsoftlimit, dquot->dq_dqb.dqb_bhardlimit)?
 > 

Please  skip this patch from  stable list,  I'll send  a revised patch to upstream.

Thanks.