On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:14:12AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 01:54:26PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > In order to validate the UUID in xfs_dquot_verify, we need
> > the full xfs_qblk, not just the xfs_disk_dquot_t (which is
> > a subset).
> >
> > Do the same for xfs_dquot_repair, for the same reasons.
> > Casting a xfs_disk_dquot to a xfs_qblk is risky if the source
> > pointer wasn't a full xfs_dqblk, so enforce that by changing
> > the arguments to these functions.
> >
> > In xfs_qm_dqflush we move the memcpy up so that we have
> > a full (and updated) xfs_dqblk to test.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c | 23 +++++++++--------------
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_quota_defs.h | 4 ++--
> > fs/xfs/xfs_dquot.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > fs/xfs/xfs_log_recover.c | 6 ++++--
> > fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c | 6 +++---
> > 5 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c
> > index a926058..f94e8c2 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_dquot_buf.c
> > @@ -44,11 +44,13 @@
> > */
> > xfs_failaddr_t
> > xfs_dquot_verify(
> > - struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > - xfs_disk_dquot_t *ddq,
> > - xfs_dqid_t id,
> > - uint type) /* used only when IO_dorepair is true */
> > + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > + struct xfs_dqblk *dqb,
> > + xfs_dqid_t id,
> > + uint type) /* used only during quota rebuild */
> > {
> > + struct xfs_disk_dquot *ddq = &dqb->dd_diskdq;
> > +
> > /*
> > * We can encounter an uninitialized dquot buffer for 2 reasons:
> > * 1. If we crash while deleting the quotainode(s), and those blks got
> > @@ -104,13 +106,10 @@
> > int
> > xfs_dquot_repair(
> > struct xfs_mount *mp,
> > - struct xfs_disk_dquot *ddq,
> > + struct xfs_dqblk *d,
>
> Rename this to dqblks to make it clear that it is an array?
>
> > if (i == 0)
> > - id = be32_to_cpu(ddq->d_id);
> > + id = be32_to_cpu(d[i].dd_diskdq.d_id);
> >
> > - fa = xfs_dquot_verify(mp, ddq, id + i, 0);
> > + fa = xfs_dquot_verify(mp, &d[i], id + i, 0);
>
> Can we either use only array indices or only pointer arithmetics and
> not mix the two? (personall I prefer the pointer arithmetics).
>
> Functionally the patch looks fine to me.
The patch looks fine to me too, though I think Christoph's comments need
some kind of response.
--D
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" 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-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
