On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Tao Ma <tm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi yongqiang,
> On 10/17/2011 02:11 PM, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
>> After inserting an new index, current number of indexes should
>> be greater than original number by 1. So if the new index is
>> less or equal than LAST_INDEX + 1, then indexes are continugous.
>> If new index will be placed on the end, then ix will equals
>> LAST_INDEX + 1. Index entries has been verifiyed in pervious code
>> in ext4_ext_insert_index.
> Thanks for the effort. But actually this is caused by my original patch
> 4fd30c033, and your fix doesn't resolve the problem I want to fix. So
> consider ix is already overflow, the check can't prevent it from
> stamping on the memory after this extent block. I have sent another fix
> for it.
Thanks!
Sorry! My working tree is not up to date:-)
Yongqiang.
>
> Thanks
> Tao
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/ext4/extents.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> index 2dff31e..322398e 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
>> @@ -779,7 +779,7 @@ static int ext4_ext_insert_index(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
>> ix = curp->p_idx;
>> }
>>
>> - if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr))) {
>> + if (unlikely(ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX(curp->p_hdr) + 1)) {
>> EXT4_ERROR_INODE(inode, "ix > EXT_LAST_INDEX!");
>> return -EIO;
>> }
>
>
--
Best Wishes
Yongqiang Yang
--
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
