On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Chandra Seetharaman wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 16:33 +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > In xfs_ioc_trim it is possible that start+len might overflow. Fix it by > > decrementing the len so that start+len equals to the file system size in > > the worst case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_discard.c | 4 +++- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_discard.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_discard.c > > index 244e797..0fab107 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_discard.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_discard.c > > @@ -146,6 +146,7 @@ xfs_ioc_trim( > > unsigned int granularity = q->limits.discard_granularity; > > struct fstrim_range range; > > xfs_fsblock_t start, len, minlen; > > + xfs_fsblock_t max_blks = XFS_MAX_DBLOCKS(&(mp->m_sb)); > > xfs_agnumber_t start_agno, end_agno, agno; > > __uint64_t blocks_trimmed = 0; > > int error, last_error = 0; > > @@ -171,7 +172,8 @@ xfs_ioc_trim( > > start_agno = XFS_FSB_TO_AGNO(mp, start); > > if (start_agno >= mp->m_sb.sb_agcount) > > return -XFS_ERROR(EINVAL); > > - > > + if (len > max_blks) > > just wondering.... > > shouldn't this be ((start + len) > max_blks) ? Yes the patch is not correct. See http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg06897.html > > > + len = max_blks - start; > > end_agno = XFS_FSB_TO_AGNO(mp, start + len); > > if (end_agno >= mp->m_sb.sb_agcount) > > end_agno = mp->m_sb.sb_agcount - 1; > > > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
