On Tue, 6 Sep 2011, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 04:33:25PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > In xfs_ioc_trim it is possible that start+len might overflow. Fix it by
> > decrementing the len so that start+len equals to the file system size in
> > the worst case.
> The idea of the check looks reasonable, but I think it needs to be done
> a bit different. Was this caught by the new testcase you just sent?
Actually I have found the problem in other file systems too (ext4 and
btrfs) while doing test similar to the one sent recently to xfstests.
Then I fixed the problems, and then I have created the xfstests test for
it so it is clear what the correct behaviour should look like. So yes,
the testcase would have caught the problem.
> > + xfs_fsblock_t max_blks = XFS_MAX_DBLOCKS(&(mp->m_sb));
> XFS_MAX_DBLOCKS is the maximum number of blocks that the given
> geometry could support. But the last AG could be shorter than the
> others. I think you really want to check against mp->m_sb.sb_dblocks.
ah, ok, I'll change that. Thanks!