On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Tommi Virtanen
<tommi.virtanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 13:38, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub
> <yehuda.sadeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Tommi Virtanen
>> <tommi.virtanen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 04:03, Christian Brunner <chb@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> + if (buf) {
>>>> + dif = ofs-lastofs;
>>>> + if (dif > 0) {
>>>> + byte *tempbuf = (byte *) malloc(dif);
>>>> + memset(tempbuf, 0, dif);
>>>> + Hash->Update((const byte *) tempbuf, dif);
>>>> + free(tempbuf);
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> + Hash->Update((const byte *) buf, len);
>>>> + lastofs = ofs + len;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> Does this mean a file with a 100GB hole in it will make you malloc(100GB)?
>>>
>> That's in the read_iterate() callback. It wouldn't be called with
>> anything larger than a single block size.
>>
>> Unless I'm somehow missing, it's still missing the holes. Now it just
>> ignores them, it should be taking them into account as zero data.
>
> To my reading, that is *exactly* what the quoted code does -- it just
> assumes that a hole can fit fully in RAM.
>
Oh, right, misread that snippet. The test should go the other way
around; something like:
byte *hashbuf = buf;
byte *tempbuf = NULL;
if (!buf) {
tempbuf = (byte *) calloc(len);
if (!tempbuf)
return -ENOMEM;
hashbuf = tempbuf;
}
Hash->Update((const byte *) hashbuf, len);
free(tempbuf);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
