On 2014-02-17 11:42, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:06:56 +0100, Andreas Rohner wrote: >> Hi Ryusuke, >> >> On 2014-02-17 04:00, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: >>>> + segnum >= nilfs->ns_nsegments || >>> >>> This is bad too, because userland programs usually don't know the >>> segment structure of NILFS. When we specify the partition size to >>> range->len, FITRIM can fail due to this check. >>> >>> The upper limit of (range->start + range->len) should be >>> the block device size. >> >> ext4 also checks the range structure like that. Besides couldn't it be >> possible, that the block device is bigger than the file system? > > As I mentioned in my second mail, I misunderstood the meaning of this > check at first. > > As you pointed out, the block device size may be bigger than the file > system size after shrinking the file system. So, sbp->s_dev_size > should be used for for this check. But it is a bit complicated since > the current nilfs object doesn't have on-memory copy of it. > > It is OK to use nilfs->ns_nsegments as its alternative. Ok, just to be clear. According to your second mail it should look something like this in nilfs_sufile_trim_fs(): if (segnum >= nilfs->ns_nsegments) goto out; And in nilfs_ioctl_trim_fs(): if (range.len < nilfs->ns_blocksize || range.start >= (nilfs->ns_nsegments * nilfs->ns_blocks_per_segment) << nilfs->ns_blocksize_bits) return -EINVAL; Is that correct? Regards, Andreas Rohner -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
