Theodore Tso Wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 12:17:11AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> @@ -3134,8 +3135,7 @@ static void ext4_mb_use_inode_pa(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>> static void ext4_mb_use_group_pa(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>> struct ext4_prealloc_space *pa)
>> {
>> - unsigned len = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_len;
>> -
>> + unsigned int len = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_len;
>> ext4_get_group_no_and_offset(ac->ac_sb, pa->pa_pstart,
>> &ac->ac_b_ex.fe_group,
>> &ac->ac_b_ex.fe_start);
>> --
>
> This change had nothing to do with fixing the use of unitialized data,
> but when I started looking more closely, it raised a potential signed
> vs. unsigned issue: ac_o_ex is a struct ext4_free_extent, and fe_len
> is an int.
>
> So here we are assigning an int to an unsigned int. Later, len is
> assigned to ac_b_ex.len, which means assigning an unsigned int to an
> int. In other places, fe_len (an int) is compared against pa_free
> (which is an unsigned short), and fe_len gets assined to pa_free, once
> again mixing signed and unsigned.
>
> Can someone who is really familiar with this code check this out? I
> think the following pseudo-patch to mballoc.h might be in order:
>
> struct ext4_free_extent {
> ext4_lblk_t fe_logical;
> ext4_grpblk_t fe_start;
> ext4_group_t fe_group;
> - int fe_len;
> + unsigned int fe_len;
> };
>
I'm studying the ext4 code these days.
The data types always confuse me.
The length of a ext4_extent ee_len is define as unsigned short.
struct ext4_extent {
__le32 ee_block; /* first logical block extent covers */
__le16 ee_len; /* number of blocks covered by extent */
__le16 ee_start_hi; /* high 16 bits of physical block */
__le32 ee_start_lo; /* low 32 bits of physical block */
};
So I think fe_len should also be defined as unsigned short.
Is that right?
-Shen Feng
--
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
