On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 09:37:06AM -0500, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Dan & Jeff,
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 06:10:43PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
> > On 08/15/2013 01:53 PM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > The "di_size" variable comes from the disk and it's a signed 64 bit.
> > > We check the upper limit but we should check for negative numbers as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_fork.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> > > index 123971b..849fc70 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_fork.c
> > > @@ -167,7 +167,8 @@ xfs_iformat_fork(
> > > }
> > >
> > > di_size = be64_to_cpu(dip->di_size);
> > > - if (unlikely(di_size > XFS_DFORK_DSIZE(dip, ip->i_mount))) {
> > > + if (unlikely(di_size < 0 ||
> >
> > But the di_size is initialized to ZERO while allocating a new inode on disk.
> > I wonder if that is better to ASSERT in this case because the current check
> > is used to make sure that the item is inlined, or we don't need it at all.
>
> Hmm. Dan's additional check looks good to me. In this case I'd say the forced
> shutdown is more appropriate than an assert, because here we're reading the
> inode from disk, as opposed to looking at a structure that is already incore
> which we think we've initialized. We want to handle unexpected inputs from
> disk without crashing even if we are CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG.
>
> How did you come across this one?
>
These are static checker things... It's too false positive prone to
push on the real world yet.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
