Namjae Jeon <linkinj...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> This became much better than before. However, we have to consolidate the >>>> code with fat_search_long() finally. >>>> >>>> E.g. this version is having the issue already fixed. If there is >>>> corruption in fat cluster-chain, it lead to infinite >>>> loop. fat_get_cluster() checks infinite loop by limit. >>> since, the focus this time was for NFS functionality for FAT (removing >>> ESTALE error). The changes were made in that context. >>> >>> Later, we can make the changes as part of code reorganizing which can >>> be controlled via. Separate patches which do not have any impact on >>> default functionality and verification can be carried out in that >>> scope. >> >> Right. But non-production code shouldn't go into linus tree. I meant, we >> can test this patch series, but not yet production quality. > Is there any other thing which seems potential issue than offsetof()? > if yes, which problem didn't lead to production quality do you think ? > > +#define FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT (offsetof(struct fat_fid, \ > + parent_i_pos_hi)/4) > Since this expression does not result proper integer value, so will it > be correct to directly put the value like > +#define FAT_FID_SIZE_WITHOUT_PARENT 3
The issue is what I explained in the above "E.g.". Directory traversal logic should be consolidate with fat_search_log(). Otherwise, like this nfs implement, we will introduce already-fixed-problem again. And we will be bothered to fix same issue in future. -- OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
