FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Unionfs] string constant bug Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:11:49 +0200 From: Klaus Knopper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Knopper Networks To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello Junjiro, On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:13:31PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After experiencing many assertion fails, I have found a bug. unionfs has become pretty stable after fixing this bug. I am using unionfs with writable nfs branches and i have modified some other points. Junjiro Okajima --- unionfs-20050920-1539/inode.cO 2005-09-21 04:39:03.000000000 +0900 +++ unionfs-20050920-1539/inode.c 2005-09-21 20:10:16.819341832 +0900 @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ hidden_dentry = dtohd(dentry);/* check if whiteout exists in this branch, i.e. lookup .wh.foo first */- name = KMALLOC(dentry->d_name.len + sizeof(".wh"), GFP_UNIONFS); + name = KMALLOC(dentry->d_name.len + sizeof(".wh."), GFP_UNIONFS);
I can't believe this. I have been reading that special part of inode.c several times during my 3 week debugging session, and did not notice the "off by one", maybe because the last byte of "name" is overwritten with a zero later. Also, I was searching more for uninitialized pointers or race conditions. Congratulations, it seems that you have just solved a LOT of the unionfs-related problems I had in Knoppix (especially when overwriting files multiple times, which was probably just a problem with whiteout filename generation that was affected by the wrong kmalloc). Some bugs are still pending, but at least now it looks like I can make a new release this week. Can I send you something for showing my appreciation of your quick bugfix? Regards -Klaus Knopper _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/livecd FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
