On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 14:49:24 +0300, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>> index 9384a2a..d8d53f7 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
>> @@ -3335,6 +3335,24 @@ static long btrfs_ioctl_balance(struct file *file,
>> void __user *arg)
>>
>> goto do_balance;
>> }
>> +
>> + if ((bargs->data.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_USAGE) &&
>> + (bargs->data.usage < 0 || bargs->data.usage > 100)) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out_bargs;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if ((bargs->meta.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_USAGE) &&
>> + (bargs->meta.usage < 0 || bargs->meta.usage > 100)) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out_bargs;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if ((bargs->sys.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_USAGE) &&
>> + (bargs->sys.usage < 0 || bargs->sys.usage > 100)) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out_bargs;
>> + }
>> } else {
>> bargs = NULL;
>> }
>
> Why not drop this hunk ...
Generally, we should check the value when it is input. If not, we might
run our program with the wrong value, and it is possible to cause unknown
problems. So I think the above chunk is necessary.
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 6019fb2..ff86f91 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -2334,8 +2334,13 @@ static int chunk_usage_filter(struct btrfs_fs_info
> *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset,
> cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> chunk_used = btrfs_block_group_used(&cache->item);
>
> - BUG_ON(bargs->usage < 0 || bargs->usage > 100);
> - user_thresh = div_factor(cache->key.offset, bargs->usage);
> + if (bargs->usage == 0)
> + user_thresh = 0;
> + else if (bargs->usage >= 100)
> + user_thresh = cache->key.offset;
> + else
> + user_thresh = div_factor(cache->key.offset, bargs->usage);
> +
> if (chunk_used < user_thresh)
> ret = 0;
>
> (diff is on top of the patch in question)
>
> This is the most straightforward transformation I can think of. It
> doesn't result in an unnecessary BUG_ON, keeps churn to a minimum and
agree with you.
> doesn't change the "style" of the balance ioctl. (If I were to check
> every filter argument that way, btrfs_balance_ioctl() would be very long
> and complicated.)
I think the check in btrfs_balance_ioctl() is necessary, the reason is above.
Thanks
Miao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
