[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230428164425.GD2654@twin.jikos.cz>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 18:44:25 +0200
From: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
Cc: Анастасия Белова
<abelova@...ralinux.ru>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: parent bytenr must be aligned to sector size
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 08:25:14PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/4/26 19:53, Анастасия Белова wrote:
> > From: Anastasia Belova <abelova@...ralinux.ru>
> >
> > Change nodesize to sectorsize in alignment check
> > in print_extent_item. Change requirement in comment.
> >
> > Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
> >
> > Fixes: ea57788eb76d ("btrfs: require only sector size alignment for parent eb bytenr")
> > Signed-off-by: Anastasia Belova <abelova@...ralinux.ru>
>
> Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
>
> A little surprised that a static checker can even find such hidden problem.
I've seen in Coverity a fuzzy report like "there are 8 cases that do
thing X and this one does not, is it expected?" which is basically just
pattern matching but can be caused by copy&paste mistakes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists