On Jun 20, 2007 14:56 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > when ext2fs_block_iterate() is called on a fast symlink (and I assume > device inodes would be no different), then random things happen - the > problem is ext2fs_block_iterate() just blindly takes portions of the inode > and treats them as block numbers. Now I agree that garbage went in (it > makes no sence to call this function on such inode) so garbage results but > maybe it would be nicer to handle it more gracefully. Attached patch should > do it. > --- a/lib/ext2fs/inode.c 2007-06-20 13:55:52.000000000 +0200 > +++ b/lib/ext2fs/inode.c 2007-06-20 14:11:15.000000000 +0200 > @@ -771,6 +771,10 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_get_blocks(ext2_filsys > retval = ext2fs_read_inode(fs, ino, &inode); > if (retval) > return retval; > + if (LINUX_S_ISCHR(inode.i_mode) || LINUX_S_ISBLK(inode.i_mode) || > + (LINUX_S_ISLNK(inode.i_mode) && > + ext2fs_inode_data_blocks(fs, &inode) == 0)) > + return EXT2_ET_INVAL_INODE_TYPE; I would prefer that we NOT continue to make fast symlinks conditional upon the i_blocks count. That causes problems if e.g. an EA block is present (that would cause this blocks == 0 test to incorrectly fail), and may making the check (blocks - !!i_file_acl) can still fail for other reasons where a block is added to an inode (e.g. if we have larger EAs, etc). I'd prefer to make this check "i_size < sizeof(i_block)" or similar, which has always been true for fast symlinks, for every kernel that I have ever seen. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc. - 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
