* [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node
@ 2013-09-12 21:00 Eric Sandeen
2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2013-09-12 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com'
The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5),
but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4.
Level 5 would be a depth of 6.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
---
diff --git a/db/check.c b/db/check.c
index cbe55ba..d9e3e3f 100644
--- a/db/check.c
+++ b/db/check.c
@@ -3138,7 +3138,7 @@ process_leaf_node_dir_v2_int(
case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
node = iocur_top->data;
xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
- if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
+ if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
if (!sflag || v)
dbprintf(_("bad node block level %d for dir ino "
"%lld block %d\n"),
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node
2013-09-12 21:00 [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node Eric Sandeen
@ 2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-18 19:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com'
On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5),
> but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4.
>
> Level 5 would be a depth of 6.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/db/check.c b/db/check.c
> index cbe55ba..d9e3e3f 100644
> --- a/db/check.c
> +++ b/db/check.c
> @@ -3138,7 +3138,7 @@ process_leaf_node_dir_v2_int(
> case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
> node = iocur_top->data;
> xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
> - if (nodehdr.level< 1 || nodehdr.level> XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
> + if (nodehdr.level< 1 || nodehdr.level>= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
> if (!sflag || v)
> dbprintf(_("bad node block level %d for dir ino "
> "%lld block %d\n"),
I think the current code is correct.
0 is a leaf. levels 1-XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH are nodes.
Subtract 1 when used as an index.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node
2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely
@ 2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2013-09-18 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Tinguely; +Cc: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com', Eric Sandeen
On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5),
>> but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4.
>>
>> Level 5 would be a depth of 6.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>
>
>> diff --git a/db/check.c b/db/check.c
>> index cbe55ba..d9e3e3f 100644
>> --- a/db/check.c
>> +++ b/db/check.c
>> @@ -3138,7 +3138,7 @@ process_leaf_node_dir_v2_int(
>> case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
>> node = iocur_top->data;
>> xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
>> - if (nodehdr.level< 1 || nodehdr.level> XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
>> + if (nodehdr.level< 1 || nodehdr.level>= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
>> if (!sflag || v)
>> dbprintf(_("bad node block level %d for dir ino "
>> "%lld block %d\n"),
>
>
> I think the current code is correct.
>
> 0 is a leaf. levels 1-XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH are nodes.
> Subtract 1 when used as an index.
case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
node = iocur_top->data;
xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level);
if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
so nodehdr.level comes directly off the disk.
Hm, ok, let's look at the verifier, xfs_da3_node_verify:
xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk /* sets to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level) */
...
if (ichdr.level == 0)
return false;
if (ichdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH)
return false;
ok, so 1 through XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH is valid for a generic node. *shrug* ok
fine, I agree. It's only xfs_check anyway. ;)
Feel free to drop this patch then.
But now I'm trying to reconcile it w/ the code in repair,
i = da_cursor->active = nodehdr.level;
if (i < 1 || i >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
which considers nodehdr.level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH to be problematic, because
i (== nodehdr.level) is used directly as an index into a level[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH]-sized
array.
So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?)
-Eric
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node
2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-18 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com', Eric Sandeen
On 09/18/13 15:20, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5),
>>> but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4.
>>>
>>> Level 5 would be a depth of 6.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@redhat.com>
>>> ---
...
>> I think the current code is correct.
> So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?)
>
> -Eric
Well, I am frequently noted as being permanently confused!
I was referring to the kernel use of XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH. All the
comparison indicate that having a value of 1 to XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH as
being okay.
When it accesses the xfs_da_state_blk_t blk[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH],
it decrements the index first there is no blk[] entry for a leaf that
is why it does not need another entry.
I need to study this more.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node
2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely
@ 2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mark Tinguely @ 2013-09-23 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: 'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com', Eric Sandeen
On 09/18/13 15:20, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5),
>>> but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4.
>>>
>>> Level 5 would be a depth of 6.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>
>>> diff --git a/db/check.c b/db/check.c
>>> index cbe55ba..d9e3e3f 100644
>>> --- a/db/check.c
>>> +++ b/db/check.c
>>> @@ -3138,7 +3138,7 @@ process_leaf_node_dir_v2_int(
>>> case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
>>> node = iocur_top->data;
>>> xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
>>> - if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
>>> + if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
>>> if (!sflag || v)
>>> dbprintf(_("bad node block level %d for dir ino "
>>> "%lld block %d\n"),
>>
>>
>> I think the current code is correct.
>>
>> 0 is a leaf. levels 1-XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH are nodes.
>> Subtract 1 when used as an index.
>
> case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
> node = iocur_top->data;
> xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
> to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level);
> if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
>
> so nodehdr.level comes directly off the disk.
>
> Hm, ok, let's look at the verifier, xfs_da3_node_verify:
>
> xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk /* sets to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level) */
>
> ...
>
> if (ichdr.level == 0)
> return false;
> if (ichdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH)
> return false;
>
> ok, so 1 through XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH is valid for a generic node. *shrug* ok
> fine, I agree. It's only xfs_check anyway. ;)
>
> Feel free to drop this patch then.
>
> But now I'm trying to reconcile it w/ the code in repair,
>
> i = da_cursor->active = nodehdr.level;
> if (i < 1 || i >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
>
> which considers nodehdr.level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH to be problematic, because
> i (== nodehdr.level) is used directly as an index into a level[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH]-sized
> array.
>
> So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?)
>
> -Eric
Strange, the kernel attribute asserts use XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH-1 as the
maximum good value.
Looks like the repair code uses the cursor level[0], so we cannot index
with (i - 1). I agree that the array in the da_bt_cursor should be one
greater.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-09-23 13:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-09-12 21:00 [PATCH] xfs_check: fix test for too-high level in v2 dir node Eric Sandeen
2013-09-18 19:35 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-09-18 20:20 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-09-18 20:55 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-09-23 13:36 ` Mark Tinguely
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.