linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACOAw_weaNhBUpeR9xnkPYQCu6RO-AkUZeJGJYh9tokdUtATKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:04:07 -0700
From:   Daeho Jeong <daeho43@...il.com>
To:     Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs-tools: use proper address entry count for direct nodes

On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:55 PM Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/04, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2023 at 4:26 PM Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/03, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> > > > From: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
> > > >
> > > > For direct nodes, we have to use DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fsck/fsck.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > index 78ffdb6..56a7d31 100644
> > > > --- a/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > +++ b/fsck/fsck.c
> > > > @@ -2894,7 +2894,7 @@ static void fsck_failed_reconnect_file_dnode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > > >       fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> > > >       f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, ni.blk_addr);
> > > >
> > > > -     for (i = 0; i < ADDRS_PER_BLOCK(&node->i); i++) {
> > > > +     for (i = 0; i < DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK; i++) {
> > >
> > > It seems we need to use the inode block passing by fsck_failed_reconnect_file().
> >
> > This function is for direct nodes. Is it correct to use inode block here?
>
>  523 unsigned int addrs_per_block(struct f2fs_inode *i)
>  524 {
>  525         if (!LINUX_S_ISREG(le16_to_cpu(i->i_mode)) ||
>  526                         !(le32_to_cpu(i->i_flags) & F2FS_COMPR_FL))
>  527                 return DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK;
>  528         return ALIGN_DOWN(DEF_ADDRS_PER_BLOCK, 1 << i->i_log_cluster_size);
>  529 }
>
> If the inode is compressed, it seems it has to be aligned to cluster size.

makes sense. Thanks~!

>
> >
> > >
> > > >               addr = le32_to_cpu(node->dn.addr[i]);
> > > >               if (!addr)
> > > >                       continue;
> > >
> > > 3012                         fsck->chk.valid_blk_cnt--;
> > > 3013                         if (addr == NEW_ADDR)
> > >
> > > And, we also need to skip if addr == COMPRESS_ADDR here?
> > >
> > > 3014                                 continue;
> > > 3015                         f2fs_clear_main_bitmap(sbi, addr);
> > > 3016                 }
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.42.0.582.g8ccd20d70d-goog