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=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham 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 3B076C43381 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:58:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0732E205C9 for ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:58:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="3+v3P5fp" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390603AbfBOH6s (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:58:48 -0500 Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com ([141.146.126.79]:53464 "EHLO aserp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727249AbfBOH6s (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2019 02:58:48 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1F7n0t9003543; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:58:10 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2018-07-02; bh=xGG5BLeVn/vzYF68+/jx4DYwNAgtI72APfiYgr2Yf0Q=; b=3+v3P5fpt+Za29UHvG8EqUMOKOXHi3IxxChiljAoBr8DnQvrazWRm6fJBAZ6hnhm3R63 /3Hc9ZzcN0iG/yJ6qBzkZx1CEDdSrbvDmm10Jv0KeAC73RZ6X/jZY6suRSdTi5jigg3i MaKSoCQipA6dams5zSu+VrasLDJQYgsEdZrCJtvOG/K6osjFQ7kfBg4ALROgMN7SmbAw vnnoqp2ZtwW21deXeobSgeDmPE0me4Hqi9018l1RQhegnrkF7vt1zSLWnZJVEJPvX+Ee 2aTYqnggwVlQ3IBfWrH7D4sBUSwb2IRmJQ5vH1gSjCtY+A1G8bDwHXXTIN2OTjr1nnZ4 +Q== Received: from userv0021.oracle.com (userv0021.oracle.com [156.151.31.71]) by aserp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2qhre5va1q-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:58:10 +0000 Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userv0021.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1F7w9Js011783 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:58:09 GMT Received: from abhmp0008.oracle.com (abhmp0008.oracle.com [141.146.116.14]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1F7w9g1031533; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:58:09 GMT Received: from kadam (/197.157.0.55) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 07:58:08 +0000 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:57:57 +0300 From: Dan Carpenter To: Chao Yu Cc: Gao Xiang , Al Viro , Greg Kroah-Hartman , devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org, Chao Yu , LKML , stable@vger.kernel.org, weidu.du@huawei.com, Fang Wei , Miao Xie Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: erofs: keep corrupted fs from crashing kernel in erofs_namei() Message-ID: <20190215075757.GG2326@kadam> References: <20190201121631.15179-1-gaoxiang25@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=5900 definitions=9167 signatures=668683 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=685 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902150059 Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 03:02:25PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/2/1 20:16, Gao Xiang wrote: > > + /* > > + * on-disk error, let's only BUG_ON in the debugging mode. > > + * otherwise, it will return 1 to just skip the invalid name > > + * and go on (in consideration of the lookup performance). > > + */ > > + DBG_BUGON(qd->name > qd->end); > > qd->name == qd->end is not allowed as well? > > So will it be better to return directly here? > > if (unlikely(qd->name >= qd->end)) { > DBG_BUGON(1); > return 1; > } Please don't add likely/unlikely() annotations unless you have benchmarked it and it makes a difference. regards, dan carpenter