On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 05:18:57PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > Is EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE() broken? It makes use of i_extra_isize - which is an > optional field and doesn't exist if the filesystem was made with "-I 128". > > (gdb) p &((struct ext4_inode *)0)->i_extra_isize > $2 = (__le16 *) 0x80 <irq_stack_union+128> > > Should EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(): > > #define EXT4_FITS_IN_INODE(ext4_inode, einode, field) \ > ((offsetof(typeof(*ext4_inode), field) + \ > sizeof((ext4_inode)->field)) \ > <= (EXT4_GOOD_OLD_INODE_SIZE + \ > (einode)->i_extra_isize)) \ > > be using EXT4_INODE_SIZE() and consulting the superblock instead? In theory, all the callers should check EXT4_INODE_SIZE() beforehand... ...but that doesn't seem to be happening for the *INODE_[SG]ET_XTIME macros. I think it's time to turn all those macros into proper static inline functions and make them do the size checks rather than hoping we open-code it correctly. (Also, the XTIME macros themselves are ugly.) --D > > David > -- > 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 -- 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
