linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] libext2fs: fix the range validation in bitmap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:23:59 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...rs.sf.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libext2fs: fix the range validation in bitmap_range2
 funcs

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:16:32PM +0300, amir73il@...rs.sourceforge.net wrote:
> From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...rs.sf.net>
> 
> The condition ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) in bitmap_ragne2
> and generic_bmap_range funcs in get_bitmap64.c was wrong and
> inconsistent with the condition (start+num-1 > bmap->real_end)
> in generic_bitmap_range funcs in get_bitmap.c.
> 
> I got the following error from tune2fs on a 16TB fs:
> Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_unmark_block_bitmap #4294967295
> for block bitmap for 16TB.img
> tune2fs: Invalid argument while reading bitmaps
> 
> Fix to condition to ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL), because
> the bit (start+num) is not going to be changed by the funcs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...rs.sf.net>

Applied, thanks.

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html