Messages in this thread | | | From | Tong Zhang <> | Date | Mon, 2 Nov 2020 15:17:59 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] qnx4: do not interpret -EIO as a correct address |
| |
Thanks Anders! I'm sending out another patch fixing other callers as suggested. - Tong
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 4:12 AM Anders Larsen <al@alarsen.net> wrote: > > On Friday, 2020-10-23 23:16 Tong Zhang wrote: > > qnx4_block_map() may return -EIO on funny qnx4 fs image, in this case do > > not interpret -EIO as a correct address > > > > Signed-off-by: Tong Zhang <ztong0001@gmail.com> > > --- > > fs/qnx4/inode.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/qnx4/inode.c b/fs/qnx4/inode.c > > index e8da1cde87b9..d3a40c5b1a9a 100644 > > --- a/fs/qnx4/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/qnx4/inode.c > > @@ -59,6 +59,8 @@ static int qnx4_get_block( struct inode *inode, sector_t iblock, struct buffer_h > > QNX4DEBUG((KERN_INFO "qnx4: qnx4_get_block inode=[%ld] iblock=[%ld]\n",inode->i_ino,iblock)); > > > > phys = qnx4_block_map( inode, iblock ); > > + if (phys == -EIO) > > + return -EIO; > > if ( phys ) { > > // logical block is before EOF > > map_bh(bh, inode->i_sb, phys); > > The fix looks sane to me, but how about the two other callers of > qnx4_block_map(), are they not affected as well? > > Cheers > Anders > >
| |