Hi,
On 9/30/23 22:42, Sean Anderson wrote:
This check breaks small partitions (under 1024 blocks) because part_length
is in units of part.blksz and not bytes. Given the purpose of this
function, we really want to make sure the partition is SUPERBLOCK_START +
SUPERBLOCK_SIZE (2048) bytes so we can call ext4_read_superblock without
error.
The obvious solution is to convert callers from things like
ext4fs_mount(part_info.size)
to
ext4fs_mount(part_info.size * part_info.blksz);
However, I'm not really a fan of the bloat that would cause, especially
since the error is now suppressed. I think the best course of action here
is to just revert the patch.
This reverts commit 9905cae65e03335aefcb1ebfab5b7ee62d89f64e.
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <[email protected]>
---
fs/ext4/ext4_common.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
index 9a9c520e22c..f50de7c089e 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_common.c
@@ -2373,10 +2373,6 @@ int ext4fs_mount(unsigned part_length)
struct ext2_data *data;
int status;
struct ext_filesystem *fs = get_fs();
-
- if (part_length < SUPERBLOCK_SIZE)
- return 0;
-
data = zalloc(SUPERBLOCK_SIZE);
if (!data)
return 0;
Agreed, I introduced error for part size in parameter
(in blk multiple even if after dev read if done after with bytes size)
And with caller change (part_info.size * part_info.blksz) we have risk
of overflow for large ex4 partition.
minor remark: "part_length" is no more used....
it can be removed to avoid warining ?
include/ext4fs.h:149:int ext4fs_mount(void);
or use the tag "__always_unused":
int ext4fs_mount(unsigned __always_unused part_length)
{
With the remarks:
Reviewed-by: Patrick Delaunay <[email protected]>
Thanks
Patrick
