Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Kalpak Shah wrote:
> ...
>
>
>> Index: e2fsprogs-1.39/lib/ext2fs/inode.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- e2fsprogs-1.39.orig/lib/ext2fs/inode.c 2007-06-19
>> 22:31:21.000000000 -0700
>> +++ e2fsprogs-1.39/lib/ext2fs/inode.c 2007-06-20 01:06:18.017788976 -0700
>> @@ -471,6 +471,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_get_next_inode_full(ext
>> scan->bytes_left -= scan->inode_size - extra_bytes;
>>
>> #ifdef EXT2FS_ENABLE_SWAPFS
>> + memset(inode, 0, bufsize);
>> if ((scan->fs->flags & EXT2_FLAG_SWAP_BYTES) ||
>> (scan->fs->flags & EXT2_FLAG_SWAP_BYTES_READ))
>> ext2fs_swap_inode_full(scan->fs,
>> @@ -485,6 +486,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_get_next_inode_full(ext
>> scan->scan_flags &= ~EXT2_SF_BAD_EXTRA_BYTES;
>> } else {
>> #ifdef EXT2FS_ENABLE_SWAPFS
>> + memset(inode, 0, bufsize);
>> if ((scan->fs->flags & EXT2_FLAG_SWAP_BYTES) ||
>> (scan->fs->flags & EXT2_FLAG_SWAP_BYTES_READ))
>> ext2fs_swap_inode_full(scan->fs,
>>
>
>
> This is making "make check" fail for me on ppc64:
> (git-bisect claims 1ed49d2c2ab7fdb02158d5feeb86288ece7eb17c is the first
> bad commit...) Any ideas? Looking into it now.
>
>
Ok, I think this is the deal... ext2fs_get_next_inode_full zeros out
"inode" which is the "t" (->to) inode that is sent to
ext2fs_swap_inode_full, with hostorder==0, which does this:
if (hostorder) /* "from" in hostorder */
has_data_blocks = ext2fs_inode_data_blocks(fs,
(struct ext2_inode *) f);
t->i_blocks = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_blocks);
if (!hostorder) /* "to" (will be) in hostorder, zeroed by caller */
/* ext2fs_inode_data_blocks checks t->i_file_acl! */
has_data_blocks = ext2fs_inode_data_blocks(fs,
(struct ext2_inode *) t);
t->i_flags = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_flags);
t->i_file_acl = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_file_acl); /* finally set! */
so in the !hostorder case, ext2fs_inode_data_blocks checks t->i_file_acl,
which has been cleared by the caller, and isn't set until *after* it is
tested in ext2fs_get_next_inode_full.
So I'm a little lost in the order of things here, but it looks to me
like we need to set t->i_file_acl before we try to test
ext2fs_inode_data_blocks for that "to" inode...
Seems fair? At least it passes "make check" on both x86 and ppc
with the following change...
-Eric
---------
set t->i_file_acl before we test it in
ext2fs_inode_data_blocks
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: e2fsprogs-1.40.2/lib/ext2fs/swapfs.c
===================================================================
--- e2fsprogs-1.40.2.orig/lib/ext2fs/swapfs.c
+++ e2fsprogs-1.40.2/lib/ext2fs/swapfs.c
@@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ void ext2fs_swap_inode_full(ext2_filsys
t->i_dtime = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_dtime);
t->i_gid = ext2fs_swab16(f->i_gid);
t->i_links_count = ext2fs_swab16(f->i_links_count);
+ t->i_file_acl = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_file_acl);
if (hostorder)
has_data_blocks = ext2fs_inode_data_blocks(fs,
(struct ext2_inode *) f);
@@ -158,7 +159,6 @@ void ext2fs_swap_inode_full(ext2_filsys
has_data_blocks = ext2fs_inode_data_blocks(fs,
(struct ext2_inode *) t);
t->i_flags = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_flags);
- t->i_file_acl = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_file_acl);
t->i_dir_acl = ext2fs_swab32(f->i_dir_acl);
if (!islnk || has_data_blocks ) {
for (i = 0; i < EXT2_N_BLOCKS; i++)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
