+4
−2
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
We were incorrectly detecting when the target key didn't exist anymore
after releasing the path and re-searching the tree. This could make
us split or duplicate (btrfs_split_item() and btrfs_duplicate_item()
are its only callers at the moment) an item when we should not.
For the case of duplicating an item, we currently only duplicate
checksum items (csum tree) and file extent items (fs/subvol trees).
For the checksum items we end up overriding the item completely,
but for file extent items we update only some of their fields in
the copy (done in __btrfs_drop_extents), which means we can end up
having a logical corruption for some values.
Also for the case where we duplicate a file extent item it will make
us produce a leaf with a wrong key order, as btrfs_duplicate_item()
advances us to the next slot and then its caller sets a smaller key
on the new item at that slot (like in __btrfs_drop_extents() e.g.).
Alternatively if the tree search in setup_leaf_for_split() leaves
with path->slots[0] == btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]), we end
up accessing beyond the leaf's end (when we check if the item's size
has changed) and make our caller insert an item at the invalid slot
btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]) + 1, causing an invalid memory
access if the leaf is full or nearly full.
This issue has been present since the introduction of this function
in 2009:
Btrfs: Add btrfs_duplicate_item
commit ad48fd75
Signed-off-by:
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by:
Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE