Commit 65ddf656 authored by Chao Yu's avatar Chao Yu Committed by Jaegeuk Kim

f2fs: fix to do sanity check for sb/cp fields correctly

This patch fixes below problems of sb/cp sanity check:
- in sanity_check_raw_superi(), it missed to consider log header
blocks while cp_payload check.
- in f2fs_sanity_check_ckpt(), it missed to check nat_bits_blocks.

Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarChao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
parent 4b106518
......@@ -3264,11 +3264,13 @@ static int sanity_check_raw_super(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
return -EFSCORRUPTED;
}
if (le32_to_cpu(raw_super->cp_payload) >
(blocks_per_seg - F2FS_CP_PACKS)) {
f2fs_info(sbi, "Insane cp_payload (%u > %u)",
if (le32_to_cpu(raw_super->cp_payload) >=
(blocks_per_seg - F2FS_CP_PACKS -
NR_CURSEG_PERSIST_TYPE)) {
f2fs_info(sbi, "Insane cp_payload (%u >= %u)",
le32_to_cpu(raw_super->cp_payload),
blocks_per_seg - F2FS_CP_PACKS);
blocks_per_seg - F2FS_CP_PACKS -
NR_CURSEG_PERSIST_TYPE);
return -EFSCORRUPTED;
}
......@@ -3304,6 +3306,7 @@ int f2fs_sanity_check_ckpt(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
unsigned int cp_pack_start_sum, cp_payload;
block_t user_block_count, valid_user_blocks;
block_t avail_node_count, valid_node_count;
unsigned int nat_blocks, nat_bits_bytes, nat_bits_blocks;
int i, j;
total = le32_to_cpu(raw_super->segment_count);
......@@ -3434,6 +3437,17 @@ int f2fs_sanity_check_ckpt(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
return 1;
}
nat_blocks = nat_segs << log_blocks_per_seg;
nat_bits_bytes = nat_blocks / BITS_PER_BYTE;
nat_bits_blocks = F2FS_BLK_ALIGN((nat_bits_bytes << 1) + 8);
if (__is_set_ckpt_flags(ckpt, CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG) &&
(cp_payload + F2FS_CP_PACKS +
NR_CURSEG_PERSIST_TYPE + nat_bits_blocks >= blocks_per_seg)) {
f2fs_warn(sbi, "Insane cp_payload: %u, nat_bits_blocks: %u)",
cp_payload, nat_bits_blocks);
return -EFSCORRUPTED;
}
if (unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) {
f2fs_err(sbi, "A bug case: need to run fsck");
return 1;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment