[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d86cdf32-bc4d-bbab-d756-baef2b12cace@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 16:16:43 +0800
From: Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...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 v4 4/5] erofs: unify inline/share xattr iterators for
listxattr/getxattr
On 5/31/23 2:57 PM, Gao Xiang wrote:
>
>
> On 2023/5/31 11:13, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>> -static int inline_xattr_iter_begin(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it,
>> - struct inode *inode)
>> -{
>> - struct erofs_inode *const vi = EROFS_I(inode);
>> - unsigned int xattr_header_sz, inline_xattr_ofs;
>> -
>> - xattr_header_sz = sizeof(struct erofs_xattr_ibody_header) +
>> - sizeof(u32) * vi->xattr_shared_count;
>> - if (xattr_header_sz >= vi->xattr_isize) {
>> - DBG_BUGON(xattr_header_sz > vi->xattr_isize);
>> - return -ENOATTR;
>> - }
In the original implementation, here when xattr_header_sz >=
vi->xattr_isize, inline_xattr_iter_begin() will return -ENOATTR rather
than a negative integer (i.e. vi->xattr_isize - xattr_header_sz).
>> static int erofs_xattr_generic_get(const struct xattr_handler *handler,
>> struct dentry *unused, struct inode *inode,
>> const char *name, void *buffer, size_t size)
>> @@ -542,45 +432,98 @@ static const struct xattr_iter_handlers
>> list_xattr_handlers = {
>> .value = NULL
>> };
>> -static int inline_listxattr(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it)
>> +static int erofs_iter_inline_xattr(struct erofs_xattr_iter *it,
>> + struct inode *inode, bool getxattr)
>> {
>> + struct erofs_inode *const vi = EROFS_I(inode);
>> + const struct xattr_iter_handlers *op;
>> + unsigned int xattr_header_sz, remaining;
>> + erofs_off_t pos;
>> int ret;
>> - unsigned int remaining;
>> - ret = inline_xattr_iter_begin(it, d_inode(it->dentry));
>
> In the past, "ret" here is "an int", and
> vi->xattr_isize - xattr_header_sz < 0 will return
> negative value (although I think that value is problematic).
>
> see below.
See comment above.
>
>
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> - return ret;
>> + xattr_header_sz = sizeof(struct erofs_xattr_ibody_header) +
>> + sizeof(u32) * vi->xattr_shared_count;
>> + if (xattr_header_sz >= vi->xattr_isize) {
>> + DBG_BUGON(xattr_header_sz > vi->xattr_isize);
>> + return -ENOATTR;
>> + }
This checking for "xattr_header_sz >= vi->xattr_isize" is also included
in this patch.
--
Thanks,
Jingbo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists