Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:11:38 +0300 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: josh.carroll@gmail.com Cc: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Subject: Re: ext2 inode size patch - RE: PR kern/124621 Message-ID: <20090118201138.eeb5d9ad.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8cb6106e0812031453j6dc2f2f4i374145823c084eaa@mail.gmail.com> References: <8cb6106e0811241129o642dcf28re4ae177c8ccbaa25@mail.gmail.com> <20081125140601.GH2042@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <8cb6106e0811250617q5fffb41exe20dfb8314fc4a9d@mail.gmail.com> <20081125142827.GI2042@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <8cb6106e0811250657q6fdf08b0x1e94f35fd0a7ed4f@mail.gmail.com> <20081125150342.GL2042@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <8cb6106e0812031453j6dc2f2f4i374145823c084eaa@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:53:43 -0500
"Josh Carroll" <josh.carroll@gmail.com> mentioned:
> > Ok, I describe my concern once more. I do not object against the checking
> > of the inode size. But, if inode size is changed, then some data is added
> > to the inode, that could (and usually does, otherwise why extend it ?)
> > change intrerpetation of the inode. Thus, we need a verification of the
> > fact that simply ignoring added fields does not damage filesystem or
> > cause user data corruption. Verification != testing.
>
> Let me take another crack at explaining why I think this patch is not dangerous.
>
> The inode size is determined by reading the following member:
>
> __u16 s_inode_size;
>
> of the ext2_super_block structure.
>
> I took a look at the Linux 2.6.27.7 kernel source, and indeed they do
> something very similar if not the same:
>
> #define EXT2_INODE_SIZE(s) (EXT2_SB(s)->s_inode_size)
>
> If you compare to what I did:
>
> #define EXT2_INODE_SIZE(s) ((s)->u.ext2_sb.s_inode_size)
>
> This is really the same thing, since EXT2_SB is defined (in the Linux
> kernel src as):
>
> #ifdef __KERNEL__
> #include <linux/ext2_fs_sb.h>
> static inline struct ext2_sb_info *EXT2_SB(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> return sb->s_fs_info;
> }
>
> And struct ext2_sb_info has the following member:
>
> int s_inode_size;
>
> Essentially, the changes I made simply query the existing information
> from the filesystem, which is what the Linux kernel does as well.
>
> The inode size, blocks per group, etc are all defined at filesystem
> creation time by mke2fs and it ensures the sanity of the relationship
> between the inodes/blocks/block groups.
>
> The first diagram here:
>
> http://sunsite.nus.sg/LDP/LDP/tlk/node95.html
>
> Makes it clear that as long as the number of inodes per block and the
> blocks per group is is sane during fs creation, looking up the inode
> size as my patch does is fine, since the creation of the filesystem is
> ensures a correct by construction situation. We're simply reading the
> size of the inode based on the filesystem.
>
> I hope this is sufficient to convince some further thought about
> committing this.
>
> For those interested in the relevant Linux kernel source, you can have
> a look at line 105 of include/linux/ext2_fs.h from the linux-2.6.27.7
> kernel source.
>
Hi Josh!
I've commited the similar patch today that should be fixing your problem.
Can you check this, please?
Sorry I've missed this thread in the first place.
- --
Stanislav Sedov
ST4096-RIPE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iEYEARECAAYFAklzYsoACgkQK/VZk+smlYF3ZwCeOyVUdzrKOdu4Pg3ztAZ0QQaY
GGIAnA+oL054T0EAajbfwpYSTDRKVISC
=jJFT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
!DSPAM:497362c8967002668918391!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090118201138.eeb5d9ad.stas>