On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 09:30:02PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:41:01 +0530 "Amit K. Arora" <aarora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > +unsigned int ext4_ext_check_overlap(struct inode *inode,
> > + struct ext4_extent *newext,
> > + struct ext4_ext_path *path)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long b1, b2;
> > + unsigned int depth, len1;
> > +
> > + b1 = le32_to_cpu(newext->ee_block);
> > + len1 = le16_to_cpu(newext->ee_len);
> > + depth = ext_depth(inode);
> > + if (!path[depth].p_ext)
> > + goto out;
> > + b2 = le32_to_cpu(path[depth].p_ext->ee_block);
> > +
> > + /* get the next allocated block if the extent in the path
> > + * is before the requested block(s) */
> > + if (b2 < b1) {
> > + b2 = ext4_ext_next_allocated_block(path);
> > + if (b2 == EXT_MAX_BLOCK)
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (b1 + len1 > b2) {
>
> Are we sure that b1+len cannot wrap through zero here?
No. Will add a check here for this. Thanks!
> > + newext->ee_len = cpu_to_le16(b2 - b1);
> > + return 1;
> > + }
--
Regards,
Amit Arora
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
