From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DB8C282DD for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492AC2072A for ; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 18:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729437AbgAHSAn (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:00:43 -0500 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:50548 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727090AbgAHSAn (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jan 2020 13:00:43 -0500 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 7E89868BFE; Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:00:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 19:00:40 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Namjae Jeon Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu, hch@lst.de, sj1557.seo@samsung.com, linkinjeon@gmail.com, pali.rohar@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/13] exfat: add exfat entry operations Message-ID: <20200108180040.GB14650@lst.de> References: <20200102082036.29643-1-namjae.jeon@samsung.com> <20200102082036.29643-7-namjae.jeon@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200102082036.29643-7-namjae.jeon@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > +int exfat_ent_get(struct super_block *sb, unsigned int loc, > + unsigned int *content) > +{ > + struct exfat_sb_info *sbi = EXFAT_SB(sb); > + int err; > + > + if (!is_valid_cluster(sbi, loc)) { > + exfat_fs_error(sb, "invalid access to FAT (entry 0x%08x)", > + loc); > + return -EIO; > + } > + > + err = __exfat_ent_get(sb, loc, content); > + if (err) { > + exfat_fs_error(sb, > + "failed to access to FAT (entry 0x%08x, err:%d)", > + loc, err); > + return err; > + } > + > + if (!is_reserved_cluster(*content) && > + !is_valid_cluster(sbi, *content)) { > + exfat_fs_error(sb, > + "invalid access to FAT (entry 0x%08x) bogus content (0x%08x)", > + loc, *content); > + return -EIO; > + } > + > + if (*content == EXFAT_FREE_CLUSTER) { > + exfat_fs_error(sb, > + "invalid access to FAT free cluster (entry 0x%08x)", > + loc); > + return -EIO; > + } > + > + if (*content == EXFAT_BAD_CLUSTER) { > + exfat_fs_error(sb, > + "invalid access to FAT bad cluster (entry 0x%08x)", > + loc); > + return -EIO; > + } > + return 0; Maybe these explicit checks should move up, and then is_reserved_cluster can be replaced with an explicit check just for EXFAT_EOF_CLUSTER? Otherwise looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig