Archive-Team
/
zfs
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases 103 Wiki Activity

Overflowing refreservation is bad 

Someone came to me and pointed out that you could pretty
readily cause the refreservation calculation to exceed
2**64, given the 2**17 multiplier in it, and produce
refreservations wildly less than the actual volsize in cases where
it should have failed.

Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>
Signed-off-by: Rich Ercolani <rincebrain@gmail.com>
Closes #15996
This commit is contained in:
Rich Ercolani 2024-04-29 14:32:49 -04:00 committed by GitHub
parent 4840f023af
commit db499e68f9
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
1 changed files with 14 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

15
lib/libzfs/libzfs_dataset.c
View File

@ -5565,8 +5565,21 @@ volsize_from_vdevs(zpool_handle_t *zhp, uint64_t nblocks, uint64_t blksize)
/* /*
* Scale this size down as a ratio of 128k / tsize. * Scale this size down as a ratio of 128k / tsize.
* See theory statement above. * See theory statement above.
*
* Bitshift is to avoid the case of nblocks * asize < tsize
* producing a size of 0.
*/ */
volsize = nblocks * asize * SPA_OLD_MAXBLOCKSIZE / tsize; volsize = (nblocks * asize) / (tsize >> SPA_MINBLOCKSHIFT);
/*
* If we would blow UINT64_MAX with this next multiplication,
* don't.
*/
if (volsize >
(UINT64_MAX / (SPA_OLD_MAXBLOCKSIZE >> SPA_MINBLOCKSHIFT)))
volsize = UINT64_MAX;
else
volsize *= (SPA_OLD_MAXBLOCKSIZE >> SPA_MINBLOCKSHIFT);
if (volsize > ret) { if (volsize > ret) {
ret = volsize; ret = volsize;
} }