xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

potential argument order bug in fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_node.c:xfs_dir2_leafn_un

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: potential argument order bug in fs/xfs/xfs_dir2_node.c:xfs_dir2_leafn_unbalance
From: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:38:18 -0400
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
I'm picking through some of the bugs in coverity's database,
and I came across this one, which I'm unsure of..

In xfs_dir2_leafn_unbalance we have this code..

1583         if (xfs_dir2_leafn_order(save_blk->bp, drop_blk->bp))
1584                 xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents(args, drop_blk->bp, &drophdr, 
dents, 0,
1585                                         save_blk->bp, &savehdr, sents, 0,
1586                                         drophdr.count);
1587         else
1588                 xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents(args, drop_blk->bp, &drophdr, 
dents, 0,
1589                                         save_blk->bp, &savehdr, sents,
1590                                         savehdr.count, drophdr.count);

The issue that coverity picked up in both cases, is that 'sents' and 'dents' 
are in
a different order to how the xfs_dir3_leafn_moveents function expects them.

Is this intentional ? If so I'll mark it as such in their db.

thanks,

        Dave


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>