Re: udf: Suspicious values in udf_statfs()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello,

On Sun 12-01-20 17:23:11, Pali Rohár wrote:
> I looked at udf_statfs() implementation and I see there two things which
> are probably incorrect:
> 
> First one:
> 
> 	buf->f_blocks = sbi->s_partmaps[sbi->s_partition].s_partition_len;
> 
> If sbi->s_partition points to Metadata partition then reported number
> of blocks seems to be incorrect. Similar like in udf_count_free().

Oh, right. This needs similar treatment like udf_count_free(). I'll fix it.
Thanks for spotting.

> Second one:
> 
> 	buf->f_files = (lvidiu != NULL ? (le32_to_cpu(lvidiu->numFiles) +
> 					  le32_to_cpu(lvidiu->numDirs)) : 0)
> 			+ buf->f_bfree;
> 
> What f_files entry should report? Because result of sum of free blocks
> and number of files+directories does not make sense for me.

This is related to the fact that we return 'f_bfree' as the number of 'free
file nodes' in 'f_ffree'. And tools generally display f_files-f_ffree as
number of used inodes. In other words we treat every free block also as a
free 'inode' and report it in total amount of 'inodes'. I know this is not
very obvious but IMHO it causes the least confusion to users reading df(1)
output.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux