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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] quota: Replace all block number checking with
 helper function
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC:     <jack@suse.com>, <tytso@mit.edu>, <brauner@kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <yukuai3@huawei.com>
References: <20220922130401.1792256-1-chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
 <20220922130401.1792256-3-chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
 <20220923114840.npx52cadeofesp5i@quack3>
From:   Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <5f5e3d09-7fc6-33e1-3f2e-669baf8e5da1@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:07:36 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20220923114840.npx52cadeofesp5i@quack3>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

?? 2022/9/23 19:48, Jan Kara д??:
> On Thu 22-09-22 21:04:00, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
>> Cleanup all block checking places, replace them with helper function
>> do_check_range().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/quota/quota_tree.c | 28 ++++++++++++----------------
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> Thanks for the fix! One comment below:
> 
>> diff --git a/fs/quota/quota_tree.c b/fs/quota/quota_tree.c
>> index f89186b6db1d..47711e739ddb 100644
>> --- a/fs/quota/quota_tree.c
>> +++ b/fs/quota/quota_tree.c
>> @@ -71,11 +71,12 @@ static ssize_t write_blk(struct qtree_mem_dqinfo *info, uint blk, char *buf)
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static inline int do_check_range(struct super_block *sb, uint val, uint max_val)
>> +static inline int do_check_range(struct super_block *sb, uint val,
>> +				 uint min_val, uint max_val)
>>   {
>> -	if (val >= max_val) {
>> -		quota_error(sb, "Getting block too big (%u >= %u)",
>> -			    val, max_val);
>> +	if (val < min_val || val >= max_val) {
>> +		quota_error(sb, "Getting block %u out of range %u-%u",
>> +			    val, min_val, max_val);
>>   		return -EUCLEAN;
>>   	}
> 
> It is strange that do_check_range() checks min_val() with strict inequality
> and max_val with non-strict one. That's off-by-one problem waiting to
> happen when we forget about this detail. Probably make max_val
> non-inclusive as well (the parameter max_val suggests the passed value is
> the biggest valid one anyway).
> 
> 								Honza
> 

I have sent v3 series, see
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220923134555.2623931-1-chengzhihao1@huawei.com/T/