On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 09:06:01AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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). Yup, I can't see a good reason for keeping them. Indeed, we could just add a conversion identifier to indicate the value is in a power of 2 and have cvtnum() do the conversion for us... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
