linux/fs/mpage.c

835 lines
23 KiB

[PATCH] fix possible PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT overflows We've had two instances recently of overflows when doing 64_bit_value = (32_bit_value << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) I did a tree-wide grep of `<<.*PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT' and this is the result. - afs_rxfs_fetch_descriptor.offset is of type off_t, which seems broken. - jfs and jffs are limited to 4GB anyway. - reiserfs map_block_for_writepage() takes an unsigned long for the block - it should take sector_t. (It'll fail for huge filesystems with blocksize<PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) - cramfs_read() needs to use sector_t (I think cramsfs is busted on large filesystems anyway) - affs is limited in file size anyway. - I generally didn't fix 32-bit overflows in directory operations. - arm's __flush_dcache_page() is peculiar. What if the page lies beyond 4G? - gss_wrap_req_priv() needs checking (snd_buf->page_base) Cc: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> Cc: <reiserfs-dev@namesys.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> Cc: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> Cc: <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-01-08 01:03:05 -08:00
[PATCH] fix possible PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT overflows We've had two instances recently of overflows when doing 64_bit_value = (32_bit_value << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT) I did a tree-wide grep of `<<.*PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT' and this is the result. - afs_rxfs_fetch_descriptor.offset is of type off_t, which seems broken. - jfs and jffs are limited to 4GB anyway. - reiserfs map_block_for_writepage() takes an unsigned long for the block - it should take sector_t. (It'll fail for huge filesystems with blocksize<PAGE_CACHE_SIZE) - cramfs_read() needs to use sector_t (I think cramsfs is busted on large filesystems anyway) - affs is limited in file size anyway. - I generally didn't fix 32-bit overflows in directory operations. - arm's __flush_dcache_page() is peculiar. What if the page lies beyond 4G? - gss_wrap_req_priv() needs checking (snd_buf->page_base) Cc: Oleg Drokin <green@linuxhacker.ru> Cc: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> Cc: <reiserfs-dev@namesys.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> Cc: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it> Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> Cc: <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-01-08 01:03:05 -08:00
[PATCH] writeback: fix range handling When a writeback_control's `start' and `end' fields are used to indicate a one-byte-range starting at file offset zero, the required values of .start=0,.end=0 mean that the ->writepages() implementation has no way of telling that it is being asked to perform a range request. Because we're currently overloading (start == 0 && end == 0) to mean "this is not a write-a-range request". To make all this sane, the patch changes range of writeback_control. So caller does: If it is calling ->writepages() to write pages, it sets range (range_start/end or range_cyclic) always. And if range_cyclic is true, ->writepages() thinks the range is cyclic, otherwise it just uses range_start and range_end. This patch does, - Add LLONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX to include/linux/kernel.h -1 is usually ok for range_end (type is long long). But, if someone did, range_end += val; range_end is "val - 1" u64val = range_end >> bits; u64val is "~(0ULL)" or something, they are wrong. So, this adds LLONG_MAX to avoid nasty things, and uses LLONG_MAX for range_end. - All callers of ->writepages() sets range_start/end or range_cyclic. - Fix updates of ->writeback_index. It seems already bit strange. If it starts at 0 and ended by check of nr_to_write, this last index may reduce chance to scan end of file. So, this updates ->writeback_index only if range_cyclic is true or whole-file is scanned. Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:26 -07:00
[PATCH] writeback: fix range handling When a writeback_control's `start' and `end' fields are used to indicate a one-byte-range starting at file offset zero, the required values of .start=0,.end=0 mean that the ->writepages() implementation has no way of telling that it is being asked to perform a range request. Because we're currently overloading (start == 0 && end == 0) to mean "this is not a write-a-range request". To make all this sane, the patch changes range of writeback_control. So caller does: If it is calling ->writepages() to write pages, it sets range (range_start/end or range_cyclic) always. And if range_cyclic is true, ->writepages() thinks the range is cyclic, otherwise it just uses range_start and range_end. This patch does, - Add LLONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX to include/linux/kernel.h -1 is usually ok for range_end (type is long long). But, if someone did, range_end += val; range_end is "val - 1" u64val = range_end >> bits; u64val is "~(0ULL)" or something, they are wrong. So, this adds LLONG_MAX to avoid nasty things, and uses LLONG_MAX for range_end. - All callers of ->writepages() sets range_start/end or range_cyclic. - Fix updates of ->writeback_index. It seems already bit strange. If it starts at 0 and ended by check of nr_to_write, this last index may reduce chance to scan end of file. So, this updates ->writeback_index only if range_cyclic is true or whole-file is scanned. Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:26 -07:00
[PATCH] writeback: fix range handling When a writeback_control's `start' and `end' fields are used to indicate a one-byte-range starting at file offset zero, the required values of .start=0,.end=0 mean that the ->writepages() implementation has no way of telling that it is being asked to perform a range request. Because we're currently overloading (start == 0 && end == 0) to mean "this is not a write-a-range request". To make all this sane, the patch changes range of writeback_control. So caller does: If it is calling ->writepages() to write pages, it sets range (range_start/end or range_cyclic) always. And if range_cyclic is true, ->writepages() thinks the range is cyclic, otherwise it just uses range_start and range_end. This patch does, - Add LLONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX to include/linux/kernel.h -1 is usually ok for range_end (type is long long). But, if someone did, range_end += val; range_end is "val - 1" u64val = range_end >> bits; u64val is "~(0ULL)" or something, they are wrong. So, this adds LLONG_MAX to avoid nasty things, and uses LLONG_MAX for range_end. - All callers of ->writepages() sets range_start/end or range_cyclic. - Fix updates of ->writeback_index. It seems already bit strange. If it starts at 0 and ended by check of nr_to_write, this last index may reduce chance to scan end of file. So, this updates ->writeback_index only if range_cyclic is true or whole-file is scanned. Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:26 -07:00
[PATCH] writeback: fix range handling When a writeback_control's `start' and `end' fields are used to indicate a one-byte-range starting at file offset zero, the required values of .start=0,.end=0 mean that the ->writepages() implementation has no way of telling that it is being asked to perform a range request. Because we're currently overloading (start == 0 && end == 0) to mean "this is not a write-a-range request". To make all this sane, the patch changes range of writeback_control. So caller does: If it is calling ->writepages() to write pages, it sets range (range_start/end or range_cyclic) always. And if range_cyclic is true, ->writepages() thinks the range is cyclic, otherwise it just uses range_start and range_end. This patch does, - Add LLONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX to include/linux/kernel.h -1 is usually ok for range_end (type is long long). But, if someone did, range_end += val; range_end is "val - 1" u64val = range_end >> bits; u64val is "~(0ULL)" or something, they are wrong. So, this adds LLONG_MAX to avoid nasty things, and uses LLONG_MAX for range_end. - All callers of ->writepages() sets range_start/end or range_cyclic. - Fix updates of ->writeback_index. It seems already bit strange. If it starts at 0 and ended by check of nr_to_write, this last index may reduce chance to scan end of file. So, this updates ->writeback_index only if range_cyclic is true or whole-file is scanned. Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:26 -07:00
[PATCH] writeback: fix range handling When a writeback_control's `start' and `end' fields are used to indicate a one-byte-range starting at file offset zero, the required values of .start=0,.end=0 mean that the ->writepages() implementation has no way of telling that it is being asked to perform a range request. Because we're currently overloading (start == 0 && end == 0) to mean "this is not a write-a-range request". To make all this sane, the patch changes range of writeback_control. So caller does: If it is calling ->writepages() to write pages, it sets range (range_start/end or range_cyclic) always. And if range_cyclic is true, ->writepages() thinks the range is cyclic, otherwise it just uses range_start and range_end. This patch does, - Add LLONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX to include/linux/kernel.h -1 is usually ok for range_end (type is long long). But, if someone did, range_end += val; range_end is "val - 1" u64val = range_end >> bits; u64val is "~(0ULL)" or something, they are wrong. So, this adds LLONG_MAX to avoid nasty things, and uses LLONG_MAX for range_end. - All callers of ->writepages() sets range_start/end or range_cyclic. - Fix updates of ->writeback_index. It seems already bit strange. If it starts at 0 and ended by check of nr_to_write, this last index may reduce chance to scan end of file. So, this updates ->writeback_index only if range_cyclic is true or whole-file is scanned. Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:26 -07:00
[PATCH] writeback: fix range handling When a writeback_control's `start' and `end' fields are used to indicate a one-byte-range starting at file offset zero, the required values of .start=0,.end=0 mean that the ->writepages() implementation has no way of telling that it is being asked to perform a range request. Because we're currently overloading (start == 0 && end == 0) to mean "this is not a write-a-range request". To make all this sane, the patch changes range of writeback_control. So caller does: If it is calling ->writepages() to write pages, it sets range (range_start/end or range_cyclic) always. And if range_cyclic is true, ->writepages() thinks the range is cyclic, otherwise it just uses range_start and range_end. This patch does, - Add LLONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX to include/linux/kernel.h -1 is usually ok for range_end (type is long long). But, if someone did, range_end += val; range_end is "val - 1" u64val = range_end >> bits; u64val is "~(0ULL)" or something, they are wrong. So, this adds LLONG_MAX to avoid nasty things, and uses LLONG_MAX for range_end. - All callers of ->writepages() sets range_start/end or range_cyclic. - Fix updates of ->writeback_index. It seems already bit strange. If it starts at 0 and ended by check of nr_to_write, this last index may reduce chance to scan end of file. So, this updates ->writeback_index only if range_cyclic is true or whole-file is scanned. Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:26 -07:00
[PATCH] writeback: fix range handling When a writeback_control's `start' and `end' fields are used to indicate a one-byte-range starting at file offset zero, the required values of .start=0,.end=0 mean that the ->writepages() implementation has no way of telling that it is being asked to perform a range request. Because we're currently overloading (start == 0 && end == 0) to mean "this is not a write-a-range request". To make all this sane, the patch changes range of writeback_control. So caller does: If it is calling ->writepages() to write pages, it sets range (range_start/end or range_cyclic) always. And if range_cyclic is true, ->writepages() thinks the range is cyclic, otherwise it just uses range_start and range_end. This patch does, - Add LLONG_MAX, LLONG_MIN, ULLONG_MAX to include/linux/kernel.h -1 is usually ok for range_end (type is long long). But, if someone did, range_end += val; range_end is "val - 1" u64val = range_end >> bits; u64val is "~(0ULL)" or something, they are wrong. So, this adds LLONG_MAX to avoid nasty things, and uses LLONG_MAX for range_end. - All callers of ->writepages() sets range_start/end or range_cyclic. - Fix updates of ->writeback_index. It seems already bit strange. If it starts at 0 and ended by check of nr_to_write, this last index may reduce chance to scan end of file. So, this updates ->writeback_index only if range_cyclic is true or whole-file is scanned. Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp> Cc: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> Cc: Steven French <sfrench@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Vladimir V. Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-06-23 02:03:26 -07:00