On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 04:09:34PM +0100, James Simmons wrote:
>
> > Hello Nathaniel Clark,
> >
> > The patch 476f575cf070: "staging: lustre: lov: Ensure correct
> > operation for large object sizes" from Jul 26, 2017, leads to the
> > following static checker warning:
> >
> > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_ea.c:207 lsm_unpackmd_common()
> > warn: signed overflow undefined. 'min_stripe_maxbytes * stripe_count <
> > min_stripe_maxbytes'
> >
> > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/lov/lov_ea.c
> > 148 static int lsm_unpackmd_common(struct lov_obd *lov,
> > 149 struct lov_stripe_md *lsm,
> > 150 struct lov_mds_md *lmm,
> > 151 struct lov_ost_data_v1 *objects)
> > 152 {
> > 153 loff_t min_stripe_maxbytes = 0;
> > ^^^^^^
> > loff_t is long long.
> >
> > 154 unsigned int stripe_count;
> > 155 struct lov_oinfo *loi;
> > 156 loff_t lov_bytes;
> > 157 unsigned int i;
> > 158
> > 159 /*
> > 160 * This supposes lov_mds_md_v1/v3 first fields are
> > 161 * are the same
> > 162 */
> > 163 lmm_oi_le_to_cpu(&lsm->lsm_oi, &lmm->lmm_oi);
> > 164 lsm->lsm_stripe_size = le32_to_cpu(lmm->lmm_stripe_size);
> > 165 lsm->lsm_pattern = le32_to_cpu(lmm->lmm_pattern);
> > 166 lsm->lsm_layout_gen = le16_to_cpu(lmm->lmm_layout_gen);
> > 167 lsm->lsm_pool_name[0] = '\0';
> > 168
> > 169 stripe_count = lsm_is_released(lsm) ? 0 :
> > lsm->lsm_stripe_count;
> > 170
> > 171 for (i = 0; i < stripe_count; i++) {
> > 172 loi = lsm->lsm_oinfo[i];
> > 173 ostid_le_to_cpu(&objects[i].l_ost_oi, &loi->loi_oi);
> > 174 loi->loi_ost_idx =
> > le32_to_cpu(objects[i].l_ost_idx);
> > 175 loi->loi_ost_gen =
> > le32_to_cpu(objects[i].l_ost_gen);
> > 176 if (lov_oinfo_is_dummy(loi))
> > 177 continue;
> > 178
> > 179 if (loi->loi_ost_idx >= lov->desc.ld_tgt_count &&
> > 180 !lov2obd(lov)->obd_process_conf) {
> > 181 CERROR("%s: OST index %d more than OST
> > count %d\n",
> > 182 (char *)lov->desc.ld_uuid.uuid,
> > 183 loi->loi_ost_idx,
> > lov->desc.ld_tgt_count);
> > 184 lov_dump_lmm_v1(D_WARNING, lmm);
> > 185 return -EINVAL;
> > 186 }
> > 187
> > 188 if (!lov->lov_tgts[loi->loi_ost_idx]) {
> > 189 CERROR("%s: OST index %d missing\n",
> > 190 (char *)lov->desc.ld_uuid.uuid,
> > 191 loi->loi_ost_idx);
> > 192 lov_dump_lmm_v1(D_WARNING, lmm);
> > 193 continue;
> > 194 }
> > 195
> > 196 lov_bytes =
> > lov_tgt_maxbytes(lov->lov_tgts[loi->loi_ost_idx]);
> > 197 if (min_stripe_maxbytes == 0 || lov_bytes <
> > min_stripe_maxbytes)
> > 198 min_stripe_maxbytes = lov_bytes;
> > 199 }
> > 200
> > 201 if (min_stripe_maxbytes == 0)
> > 202 min_stripe_maxbytes = LUSTRE_EXT3_STRIPE_MAXBYTES;
> > 203
> > 204 stripe_count = lsm->lsm_stripe_count ?:
> > lov->desc.ld_tgt_count;
> > 205 lov_bytes = min_stripe_maxbytes * stripe_count;
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > This is undefined in C.
> >
> > 206
> > 207 if (lov_bytes < min_stripe_maxbytes) /* handle overflow */
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > So this might be wrong.
> >
> > 208 lsm->lsm_maxbytes = MAX_LFS_FILESIZE;
> > 209 else
> > 210 lsm->lsm_maxbytes = lov_bytes;
> > 211
> > 212 return 0;
> > 213 }
>
> Dan what exact command did you use to find this bug? We do use smatch to
> find these kinds of issues before patches land but some how we are missing
> this class from time to time.
>
> Just to let you know the bug is being tracked under
>
> https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-9862
>
> We do have a patch as well under going testing and review.
It's something I hadn't pushed. I'll push that check right now. But
it has few warnings and I'm not actually sure it matters with the
kernel.
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
