Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-81404-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 23:47:30 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)" <kernel@pankajraghav.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chandan.babu@oracle.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, mcgrof@kernel.org, ziy@nvidia.com,
	hare@suse.de, djwong@kernel.org, gost.dev@samsung.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, willy@infradead.org,
	Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/13] xfs: make the calculation generic in
 xfs_sb_validate_fsb_count()
Message-ID: <ZdyIYrei4QWvAMpx@dread.disaster.area>
References: <20240226094936.2677493-1-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
 <20240226094936.2677493-13-kernel@pankajraghav.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240226094936.2677493-13-kernel@pankajraghav.com>

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:49:35AM +0100, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote:
> From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> 
> Instead of assuming that PAGE_SHIFT is always higher than the blocklog,
> make the calculation generic so that page cache count can be calculated
> correctly for LBS.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> index aabb25dc3efa..69af3b06be99 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -133,9 +133,15 @@ xfs_sb_validate_fsb_count(
>  {
>  	ASSERT(PAGE_SHIFT >= sbp->sb_blocklog);
>  	ASSERT(sbp->sb_blocklog >= BBSHIFT);
> +	uint64_t mapping_count;
> +	uint64_t bytes;
>  
> +	if (check_mul_overflow(nblocks, (1 << sbp->sb_blocklog), &bytes))
> +		return -EFBIG;
> +
> +	mapping_count = bytes >> PAGE_SHIFT;

max_index, not a "mapping count". Also, put this after this comment:

>  	/* Limited by ULONG_MAX of page cache index */

So it is obvious what the max_index we are calculating belongs to.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com