Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Aug 2022 21:34:51 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix bug in extents parsing when eh_entries == 0 and eh_depth > 0 | From | Baokun Li <> |
| |
Hi Luís,
On 8/12/2022 9:19 PM, Luís Henriques wrote: > Hi Baokun! > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 08:50:34PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote: >> Hi Luís, > ... >>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c >>> index 53cfe2c681c4..a5457ac1999c 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c >>> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c >>> @@ -460,6 +460,11 @@ static int __ext4_ext_check(const char *function, unsigned int line, >>> error_msg = "invalid eh_entries"; >>> goto corrupted; >>> } >>> + if (unlikely((le16_to_cpu(eh->eh_entries) == 0) && >>> + (le16_to_cpu(eh->eh_depth > 0)))) {
le16_to_cpu(eh->eh_depth > 0) It's the wrong position of the parentheses here.
>> The parentheses are misplaced, > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I want to have > > if (unlikely((CONDITION A) && (CONDITION B))) { > /* ... */ > } > > so they look correct. Or is that a matter of style/alignment? (Which > checkpatch.pl doesn't complains about, by the way.) > >> and le16_to_cpu is not needed here. > OK, I guess that, since both conditions do a comparison against '0', the > le16_to_cpu() can be dropped. And, if the parentheses problem you > mentioned above is a style problem, dropping it will also solve it because > that statement will become > > if (unlikely((eh->eh_entries == 0) && (eh->eh_depth > 0))) { > /* ... */ > }
Yeah, but it could be more streamlined here.
The earlier judgment has guaranteed "depth == eh->eh_depth"
> And once again, thanks for your review! > > Cheers,
-- With Best Regards, Baokun Li
| |