Skip to contentSkip to conversation

ext4 bitmap allocator must limit blocks to < 2^32

Bug 9502 [email protected] 1 participant 1 message Nov 13, 2009 1 message not in the archive

lore
Share & tools
lore

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]/

#1 lore raw

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9502

Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> changed:

What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |CODE_FIX
         AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected]
                   |g                           |
         Regression|---                         |No

--- Comment #5 from Eric Sandeen <[email protected]> 2009-11-13 22:16:21 --- Should be fixed in 2.6.32 by:

commit fb0a387dcdcd21aab1b09ee7fd80b7c979bdbbfd

Author: Eric Sandeen <[email protected]>
Date:   Wed Sep 16 14:45:10 2009 -0400

ext4: limit block allocations for indirect-block files to < 2^32

Today, the ext4 allocator will happily allocate blocks past 2^32 for indirect-block files, which results in the block numbers getting truncated, and corruption ensues.

This patch limits such allocations to < 2^32, and adds BUG_ONs if we do get blocks larger than that.

This should address RH Bug 519471, ext4 bitmap allocator must limit blocks to < 2^32

* ext4_find_goal() is modified to choose a goal < UINT_MAX, so that our starting point is in an acceptable range.

* ext4_xattr_block_set() is modified such that the goal block is < UINT_MAX, as above.

* ext4_mb_regular_allocator() is modified so that the group search does not continue into groups which are too high

* ext4_mb_use_preallocated() has a check that we don't use preallocated space which is too far out

* ext4_alloc_blocks() and ext4_xattr_block_set() add some BUG_ONs

No attempt has been made to limit inode locations to < 2^32, so we may wind up with blocks far from their inodes. Doing this much already will lead to some odd ENOSPC issues when the "lower 32" gets full, and further restricting inodes could make that even weirder.

For high inodes, choosing a goal of the original, % UINT_MAX, may be a bit odd, but then we're in an odd situation anyway, and I don't know of a better heuristic.

Signature · 3 lines
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching the assignee of the bug.