Theodore Tso wrote:
> I haven't had time yet to check your other patches; could you also
> take a quick scan to make sure we have all of the byte-swapping calls
> needed for proper big-endian checking, that we're using the correct
> __le32 types and not doing any casts?
I had a look at all patches I have sent, but I didn't notice anything
suspicious. While doing that, however I think I found an off-by-one in
56b19868aca856a7d7bf20c3a7a1030e4fd75b2b
Kind regards,
Thiemo
---
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index ac77d8b..6132353 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ static int ext4_valid_extent_idx(struct inode *inode,
ext4_fsblk_t block = idx_pblock(ext_idx);
struct ext4_super_block *es = EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_es;
if (unlikely(block < le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block) ||
- (block > ext4_blocks_count(es))))
+ (block >= ext4_blocks_count(es))))
return 0;
else
return 1;
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
> > I haven't had time yet to check your other patches; could you also
> > take a quick scan to make sure we have all of the byte-swapping calls
> > needed for proper big-endian checking, that we're using the correct
> > __le32 types and not doing any casts?
>
> I had a look at all patches I have sent, but I didn't notice anything
> suspicious. While doing that, however I think I found an off-by-one in
> 56b19868aca856a7d7bf20c3a7a1030e4fd75b2b
In the future, could you please remember to include a Signed-off-by:
for your patches?
Thanks!!
This one is simple enough that I'll just include it, but I'd really
prefer to get explicit signed-off patches.
- Ted
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 07:12:55PM +0200, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
>> Theodore Tso wrote:
>>> I haven't had time yet to check your other patches; could you also
>>> take a quick scan to make sure we have all of the byte-swapping calls
>>> needed for proper big-endian checking, that we're using the correct
>>> __le32 types and not doing any casts?
>> I had a look at all patches I have sent, but I didn't notice anything
>> suspicious. While doing that, however I think I found an off-by-one in
>> 56b19868aca856a7d7bf20c3a7a1030e4fd75b2b
>
> In the future, could you please remember to include a Signed-off-by:
> for your patches?
>
> Thanks!!
>
> This one is simple enough that I'll just include it, but I'd really
> prefer to get explicit signed-off patches.
Ok. So just for the record:
Signed-off-by: Thiemo Nagel <[email protected]>
---
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index ac77d8b..6132353 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ static int ext4_valid_extent_idx(struct inode *inode,
ext4_fsblk_t block = idx_pblock(ext_idx);
struct ext4_super_block *es = EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb)->s_es;
if (unlikely(block < le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block) ||
- (block > ext4_blocks_count(es))))
+ (block >= ext4_blocks_count(es))))
return 0;
else
return 1;
--
+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Dipl.-Phys. Thiemo Nagel | |
| Technische Universitaet Muenchen | Room PH1 3276 |
| Physik-Department E18 | |
| James-Franck-Strasse | Phone +49 89 289-12379 |
| D-85747 Garching | Fax +49 89 289-12570 |
+-----------------------------------+--------------------------+