On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:43:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Testing logarithmic paramters like "-n log=<num>" shows that we do a > terrible job of validating such input. e.g.: > > # mkfs.xfs -f -n log=456858480 /dev/vda > ..... > naming =version 2 bsize=65536 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0 > .... > > Yeah, I just asked for a block size of 2^456858480, and it didn't > get rejected. Great, isn't it? > > So, factor out the parsing of logarithmic parameters, and pass in > the maximum valid value that they can take. These maximum values > might not be completely accurate (e.g. block/sector sizes will > affect the eventual valid maximum) but we can get rid of all the > overflows and stupidities before we get to fine-grained validity > checking later in mkfs once things like block and sector sizes have > been finalised. Btw, is there any good reason not to deprecate the logarithmic parameters? I can't see why anyone would want to use them, but I see lots of potential for confusion (happened to myself in the past). The patch itself looks good: Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
