Valerie Aurora Henson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:42:52PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Valerie Aurora Henson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:57:42PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>>> On Nov 11, 2008 19:43 -0800, Valerie Aurora Henson wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c b/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
>>>>> index 7235f7d..71ad445 100644
>>>>> --- a/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
>>>>> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
>>>>> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_allocate_group_table(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group,
>>>>> - int prev_block = 0;
>>>>> + blk64_t prev_block = 0;
>>>>> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_allocate_group_table(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group,
>>>>> if (flexbg_size) {
>>>>> - int prev_block = 0;
>>>>> + blk64_t prev_block = 0;
>>>> These appear to be defects in the base code and should be landed ASAP
>>>> (as int -> blk_t) independently of this patch series.
>>> Agreed. Ted, is this a good format for you or do you want me to
>>> regenerate against something?
>> Is it?
>>
>> if (flexbg_size) {
>> int prev_block = 0;
>> if (group && fs->group_desc[group-1].bg_block_bitmap)
>> prev_block =
>> fs->group_desc[group-1].bg_block_bitmap;
>> start_blk = flexbg_offset(fs, group, prev_block, bmap,
>> 0, rem_grps, 1);
>> last_blk = ext2fs_group_last_block(fs, last_grp);
>> }
>>
>> bg_block_bitmap is only a __u32, and that's what we assign to prev_block.
>
> It's a signed/unsigned bug (int vs. blk_t) - it shows up at > 2^31
> blocks.
oh, sigh, I was thinking of blk_t as a 64 bit here already :)
-Eric
--
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
