在 2022/9/22 19:39, Jan Kara 写道:
On Thu 22-09-22 16:13:59, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
[...]
The free block should actually be > QT_TREEOFF so I'd add the check to do_check_range().'dh->dqdh_next_free' may be updated when quota entry removed, 'dh->dqdh_next_free' can be used for next new quota entris. Before sending v2, I found 'dh->dqdh_next_free' and 'dh->dqdh_prev_free' can easily be zero in newly allocated blocks when continually creating files onwed by different users: find_free_dqentry get_free_dqblk write_blk(info, info->dqi_blocks, buf) // zero'd qt_disk_dqdbheader blk = info->dqi_blocks++ // allocate new one block info->dqi_free_entry = blk // will be used for new quota entries find_free_dqentry if (info->dqi_free_entry) blk = info->dqi_free_entry read_blk(info, blk, buf) // dh->dqdh_next_free = dh->dqdh_prev_free = 0 I think it's normal when 'dh->dqdh_next_free' or 'dh->dqdh_prev_free' equals to 0.Good point! 0 means "not present". So any block number (either in free list or pointed from the quota tree) should be either 0 or > QT_TREEOFF. Honza
In case my emails being filtered agagin, this is notification of v2: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/20220922130401.1792256-1-chengzhihao1@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#m9676d64e8f7cdd7b7decdd0d6b725ec658110b3e
