From: Carlos Maiolino Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Ensure Inode flags consistency are checked in build time [V2] Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 17:05:34 -0200 Message-ID: <20121206190534.GC31853@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1354555976-18052-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: sergiodj@redhat.com To: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39603 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1423209Ab2LFTFj (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:05:39 -0500 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB6J5dlH018349 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:05:39 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1354555976-18052-1-git-send-email-cmaiolino@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: CC'ing Sergio as I didn't when the patch was sent On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 03:32:56PM -0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > Flags being used by atomic operations in inode flags (e.g. > ext4_test_inode_flag(), should be consistent with that actually stored in > inodes, i.e.: EXT4_XXX_FL. > > It ensures that this consistency is checked at build-time, not at run-time. > > Currently, the flags consistency are being checked at run-time, but, there is no > real reason to not do a build-time check instead of a run-time check. The code > is comparing macro defined values with enum type variables, where both are > constants, so, there is no problem in comparing constants at build-time. > > enum variables are treated as constants by the C compiler, according to the C99 > specs (see www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1124.pdf sec. 6.2.5, item > 16), so, there is no real problem in comparing an enumeration type at build time > > CC'ing Sergio who helped me to achieve this conclusion, in case there is > something else we need to discuss. > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino > --- > fs/ext4/ext4.h | 29 +++++++++++++---------------- > fs/ext4/super.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h > index 3c20de1..4ac0523 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h > @@ -451,25 +451,22 @@ enum { > EXT4_INODE_RESERVED = 31, /* reserved for ext4 lib */ > }; > > -#define TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) (EXT4_##FLAG##_FL == (1 << EXT4_INODE_##FLAG)) > -#define CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) if (!TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG)) { \ > - printk(KERN_EMERG "EXT4 flag fail: " #FLAG ": %d %d\n", \ > - EXT4_##FLAG##_FL, EXT4_INODE_##FLAG); BUG_ON(1); } > - > -/* > - * Since it's pretty easy to mix up bit numbers and hex values, and we > - * can't do a compile-time test for ENUM values, we use a run-time > - * test to make sure that EXT4_XXX_FL is consistent with respect to > - * EXT4_INODE_XXX. If all is well the printk and BUG_ON will all drop > - * out so it won't cost any extra space in the compiled kernel image. > - * But it's important that these values are the same, since we are > - * using EXT4_INODE_XXX to test for the flag values, but EXT4_XX_FL > - * must be consistent with the values of FS_XXX_FL defined in > - * include/linux/fs.h and the on-disk values found in ext2, ext3, and > - * ext4 filesystems, and of course the values defined in e2fsprogs. > +/* > + * Since it's pretty easy to mix up bit numbers and hex values, we use a > + * build-time check to make sure that EXT4_XXX_FL is consistent with respect to > + * EXT4_INODE_XXX. If all is well, the macros will be dropped, so, it won't cost > + * any extra space in the compiled kernel image, otherwise, the build will fail. > + * It's important that these values are the same, since we are using > + * EXT4_INODE_XXX to test for flag values, but EXT4_XXX_FL must be consistent > + * with the values of FS_XXX_FL defined in include/linux/fs.h and the on-disk > + * values found in ext2, ext3 and ext4 filesystems, and of course the values > + * defined in e2fsprogs. > * > * It's not paranoia if the Murphy's Law really *is* out to get you. :-) > */ > +#define TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) (EXT4_##FLAG##_FL == (1 << EXT4_INODE_##FLAG)) > +#define CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) BUILD_BUG_ON(!TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG)) > + > static inline void ext4_check_flag_values(void) > { > CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(SECRM); > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c > index 80928f7..e6f6f8b 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > @@ -5282,6 +5282,7 @@ static int __init ext4_init_fs(void) > ext4_li_info = NULL; > mutex_init(&ext4_li_mtx); > > + /* Build-time check for flags consistency */ > ext4_check_flag_values(); > > for (i = 0; i < EXT4_WQ_HASH_SZ; i++) { > -- > 1.7.11.7 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Carlos