On 09/18/13 15:20, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 9/18/13 2:35 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:00, Eric Sandeen wrote:
The test as it stands allows level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH (5),
but a max depth of 5 equates to level values of 0 through 4.
Level 5 would be a depth of 6.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/db/check.c b/db/check.c
index cbe55ba..d9e3e3f 100644
--- a/db/check.c
+++ b/db/check.c
@@ -3138,7 +3138,7 @@ process_leaf_node_dir_v2_int(
case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
node = iocur_top->data;
xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
- if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
+ if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
if (!sflag || v)
dbprintf(_("bad node block level %d for dir ino "
"%lld block %d\n"),
I think the current code is correct.
0 is a leaf. levels 1-XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH are nodes.
Subtract 1 when used as an index.
case XFS_DA_NODE_MAGIC:
node = iocur_top->data;
xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk(&nodehdr, node);
to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level);
if (nodehdr.level < 1 || nodehdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
so nodehdr.level comes directly off the disk.
Hm, ok, let's look at the verifier, xfs_da3_node_verify:
xfs_da3_node_hdr_from_disk /* sets to->level = be16_to_cpu(from->hdr.__level) */
...
if (ichdr.level == 0)
return false;
if (ichdr.level > XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH)
return false;
ok, so 1 through XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH is valid for a generic node. *shrug* ok
fine, I agree. It's only xfs_check anyway. ;)
Feel free to drop this patch then.
But now I'm trying to reconcile it w/ the code in repair,
i = da_cursor->active = nodehdr.level;
if (i < 1 || i >= XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH) {
which considers nodehdr.level == XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH to be problematic, because
i (== nodehdr.level) is used directly as an index into a level[XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH]-sized
array.
So confused. :/ (Maybe the cursor array needs to be 1 bigger?)
-Eric
Strange, the kernel attribute asserts use XFS_DA_NODE_MAXDEPTH-1 as the
maximum good value.
Looks like the repair code uses the cursor level[0], so we cannot index
with (i - 1). I agree that the array in the da_bt_cursor should be one
greater.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
