From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE0CC43381 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 06:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9664A2070B for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 06:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725997AbfCDGjL (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Mar 2019 01:39:11 -0500 Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190]:4206 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725981AbfCDGjL (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Mar 2019 01:39:11 -0500 Received: from DGGEMS402-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id C1861CF945D3A53BC3A4; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:39:09 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.134.22.195) by DGGEMS402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:39:06 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: fix to check inline_xattr_size boundary correctly To: Chao Yu , CC: , References: <20190214160825.4973-1-chao@kernel.org> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <82ef0ff8-452c-1894-6776-41c70ad7654b@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:39:06 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190214160825.4973-1-chao@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jaegeuk, On 2019/2/15 0:08, Chao Yu wrote: > --- > v2: > - fix lower bound check, inline xattr size should be larger than > xattr_header's size at least. ... > + if (F2FS_OPTION(sbi).inline_xattr_size < > + sizeof(struct f2fs_xattr_header) / sizeof(__le32) No sure we should set this low bound as above... now I guess original non-zero check is enough. How do you think of setting inline_xattr_size range as (0, MAX_INLINE_XATTR_SIZE]? Thanks,