linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] erofs: introduce erofs_xattr_iter_fixup

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]

Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 15:41:38 +0800
From:   Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>, xiang@...nel.org,
        chao@...nel.org, huyue2@...lpad.com, linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] erofs: introduce erofs_xattr_iter_fixup_aligned()
 helper

Hi,

On 2023/5/18 10:45, Jingbo Xu wrote:
> Introduce erofs_xattr_iter_fixup_aligned() helper where
> it.ofs <= EROFS_BLKSIZ is mandatory.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
>   fs/erofs/xattr.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
>   1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/erofs/xattr.c b/fs/erofs/xattr.c
> index bbfe7ce170d2..b79be2a556ba 100644
> --- a/fs/erofs/xattr.c
> +++ b/fs/erofs/xattr.c
> @@ -29,6 +29,28 @@ struct xattr_iter {
>   	unsigned int ofs;
>   };
>   
> +static inline int erofs_xattr_iter_fixup(struct xattr_iter *it)
> +{
> +	if (it->ofs < it->sb->s_blocksize)
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	it->blkaddr += erofs_blknr(it->sb, it->ofs);
> +	it->kaddr = erofs_read_metabuf(&it->buf, it->sb, it->blkaddr, EROFS_KMAP);

could we use a new buf interface to init_metabuf at once?

> +	if (IS_ERR(it->kaddr))
> +		return PTR_ERR(it->kaddr);
> +	it->ofs = erofs_blkoff(it->sb, it->ofs);
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int erofs_xattr_iter_fixup_aligned(struct xattr_iter *it)

Since we're doing cleanup, this name sounds confusing to me
since here the meaning is actually "we don't allow pos >
blksize", IOWs, any pos <= blksize is allowed here, so
'aligned' is not accurate.

Could we think out a better one?

Thanks,
Gao Xiang