Skip to contentSkip to conversation

btrfs-progs: check: Initialize all filed of btrfs_inode_item in insert_inode_item()

PATCH In review Misono Tomohiro 3 participants 4 messages Jun 7, 2018 – Jun 8, 2018 1 message not in the archive Btrfs file system

lore
Share & tools
lore

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

Misono Tomohiro

author
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 btrfs-progs: check: Initialize all filed of btrfs_inode_item in insert_inode_item()

Initialize all filed of btrfs_inode_item to zero in order to prevent having some garbage, especially for flags field.

Signed-off-by Misono Tomohiro <[email protected]>
---
 check/mode-common.c | 6 +-----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
check/mode-common.c +1 -5
index db9e4299..15e2bbd1 100644
@@ -379,18 +379,14 @@ int insert_inode_item(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 	time_t now = time(NULL);
 	int ret;
 
+	memset(&ii, 0, sizeof(ii));
 	btrfs_set_stack_inode_size(&ii, size);
 	btrfs_set_stack_inode_nbytes(&ii, nbytes);
 	btrfs_set_stack_inode_nlink(&ii, nlink);
 	btrfs_set_stack_inode_mode(&ii, mode);
 	btrfs_set_stack_inode_generation(&ii, trans->transid);
-	btrfs_set_stack_timespec_nsec(&ii.atime, 0);
 	btrfs_set_stack_timespec_sec(&ii.ctime, now);
-	btrfs_set_stack_timespec_nsec(&ii.ctime, 0);
 	btrfs_set_stack_timespec_sec(&ii.mtime, now);
-	btrfs_set_stack_timespec_nsec(&ii.mtime, 0);
-	btrfs_set_stack_timespec_sec(&ii.otime, 0);
-	btrfs_set_stack_timespec_nsec(&ii.otime, 0);
 
 	ret = btrfs_insert_inode(trans, root, ino, &ii);
 	ASSERT(!ret);
Signature · 1 line
2.14.4
#2 lore raw
Quoted 2 lines · Misono Tomohiro

Initialize all filed of btrfs_inode_item to zero in order to prevent having some garbage, especially for flags field.

Have you observed in practice or is it a matter of precaution?

author
#3 lore raw
Quoted 5 lines · David Sterba
Quoted 2 lines · Misono Tomohiro

Initialize all filed of btrfs_inode_item to zero in order to prevent having some garbage, especially for flags field.

Have you observed in practice or is it a matter of precaution?

I saw failure of fsck-test/010 in yesterday's devel branch and made this patch. It turned out that root cause was wrong flag comparison in btrfs check.
(https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg77758.html)

With Su's fix, failure of fsck-test/010 is also gone without this patch, but it is better to initialize the variables anyway.

#4 lore raw
Quoted 7 lines · Misono Tomohiro
Quoted 5 lines · David Sterba
Quoted 2 lines · Misono Tomohiro

Initialize all filed of btrfs_inode_item to zero in order to prevent having some garbage, especially for flags field.

Have you observed in practice or is it a matter of precaution?

Quoted 8 lines

I saw failure of fsck-test/010 in yesterday's devel branch and made this patch. It turned out that root cause was wrong flag comparison in btrfs check.
(https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg77758.html)

With Su's fix, failure of fsck-test/010 is also gone without this patch, but it is better to initialize the variables anyway.

Agreed. I saw odd flags reported by btrfs check too. The callers of insert_inode_item() don't set inode flags manully.

Quoted 6 lines

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html