Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1a4d:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id nk13csp4316546pxb; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 00:42:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxng3YCLUm9xovWYAsS8/dQYrwKnp8AYcK4ws5yGvuhK0oFZidO1NXFuQB5Op5teUVpw2Nr X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7fc9:: with SMTP id t9mr5088507plb.53.1644655321964; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 00:42:01 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1644655321; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=sPbgE6KUJY4A5+rxHDwwDFPFeMvszv7++Kdh5lFlulCSg0MizrdfjSPN++4ajOaiMG eu/IGi9sjK2DTRGQyEaVTOJHhSpE8Y84szp0FJ1qOdTIO+4vFdSZZnVp1mOEIRNZXsZn JAosWy+G0KFLLmECbRvVLQ4ndQx93k7JFKJnlvuz27nH7MdvxkapyQe9DyPow//wB3yS 6dRjDXHoQeq2yeonny639qcCxd0lcm1uRW6UqQKOO9j36phwOziGR9XgV4bW17Al0AU2 guPxvkfVSUM6ng7H9MEY2wxIJWG4T9oHaChXxe6qQXhQ5xbyIwzeO1RSHJt3SNGsH6kG JguQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from; bh=V/UW7SqiJEljhRyDduDr/1ZXdH7kyv+ghpyDAhBZ0c0=; b=ds03Npky2srX++A9jCgpK6ZD6eMB9z4hiYhHUVnF+bLKIq7nFU5p91wfkVSHk5oYPp wNWJuKcNT3recVAYothO3j21btan6wWoelEPBmVp8wV18PWZPFwEJdFa0/0bsw4gcP+E qsSL2dcheUjRMmUiymfzwrJ0yaYiu+xlijokCplByLkM7qnCDWvN6mD/ws3nQ0ha7KIc bdTYv4J/YDy0aNv9W36ESYUP18YQXzYcpCLxjQLNNWZPNvgJpyme9Zc8oBurgMKGsBN1 u8RH/HbLWrlJsA/6dHK7/WeWMileoJ3/PIiYH5GjsojPcHlh2nTCKMKfakyVvDrJRy1u Ua4w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u18si24703818pgm.512.2022.02.12.00.41.35; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 00:42:01 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=QUARANTINE sp=QUARANTINE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230237AbiBLEtq (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 23:49:46 -0500 Received: from gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com ([23.128.96.19]:56168 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229530AbiBLEtq (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 23:49:46 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67A5A260 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:49:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from canpemm500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.57]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4JwdKf0jBlzRBsm for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:48:38 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com (10.175.127.227) by canpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.229) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2308.21; Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:49:41 +0800 From: Zhang Yi To: CC: , , Subject: [PATCH] ext2: correct max file size computing Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 13:05:32 +0800 Message-ID: <20220212050532.179055-1-yi.zhang@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.31.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Originating-IP: [10.175.127.227] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.183) To canpemm500005.china.huawei.com (7.192.104.229) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org We need to calculate the max file size accurately if the total blocks that can address by block tree exceed the upper_limit. But this check is not correct now, it only compute the total data blocks but missing metadata blocks are needed. So in the case of "data blocks < upper_limit && total blocks > upper_limit", we will get wrong result. Fortunately, this case could not happen in reality, but it's confused and better to correct the computing. bits data blocks metadatablocks upper_limit 10 16843020 66051 2147483647 11 134480396 263171 1073741823 12 1074791436 1050627 536870911 (*) 13 8594130956 4198403 268435455 (*) 14 68736258060 16785411 134217727 (*) 15 549822930956 67125251 67108863 (*) 16 4398314962956 268468227 33554431 (*) [*] Need to calculate in depth. Fixes: 1c2d14212b15 ("ext2: Fix underflow in ext2_max_size()") Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi --- fs/ext2/super.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/ext2/super.c b/fs/ext2/super.c index 94f1fbd7d3ac..6d4f5ef74766 100644 --- a/fs/ext2/super.c +++ b/fs/ext2/super.c @@ -753,8 +753,12 @@ static loff_t ext2_max_size(int bits) res += 1LL << (bits-2); res += 1LL << (2*(bits-2)); res += 1LL << (3*(bits-2)); + /* Compute how many metadata blocks are needed */ + meta_blocks = 1; + meta_blocks += 1 + ppb; + meta_blocks += 1 + ppb + ppb * ppb; /* Does block tree limit file size? */ - if (res < upper_limit) + if (res + meta_blocks <= upper_limit) goto check_lfs; res = upper_limit; -- 2.31.1