On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 05:35:46PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 07:04:27PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> > On 32-bit systems, this shift will overflow for files larger than 4GB.
> >
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Fixes: 53b381b3abeb ("Btrfs: RAID5 and RAID6")
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> > index 255490f42b5d..5ee0a53301bd 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> > @@ -1089,7 +1089,7 @@ static int rbio_add_io_page(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio,
> > u64 disk_start;
> >
> > stripe = &rbio->bbio->stripes[stripe_nr];
> > - disk_start = stripe->physical + (page_index << PAGE_SHIFT);
> > + disk_start = stripe->physical + ((loff_t)page_index << PAGE_SHIFT);
>
> It seems that this patch is mechanical replacement. If you check the
> callers, the page_index is passed from an int that iterates over bits
> set in an unsigned long (bitmap). The result won't overflow.
Not mechanical, but I clearly made mistakes. Will you pick up the
patches which actually fix bugs?
