linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Check extent overflow with the right range.

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

Date:	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:16:05 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Tao Ma <tm@....ma>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, dan.carpenter@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Check extent overflow with the right range.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 04:45:28PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> From: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com>
> 
> In 4fd30c033, we move the range check before we change ix to avoid the memory stamp.
> But actually we should check against the EXT_MAX_INDEX, not EXT_LAST_INDEX.
> 
> So this patch revert the old patch and adds a new check before we setting ix.
> 
> Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
> Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@...bao.com>
> ---
> Ted, since 4fd30c033 is in your dev branch, I am fine to integrate these 2 patches to one.

Hi Tao,

I have integrated this with the the existing patch in dev branch (since
it isn't in the master branch yet, and hence hasn't been locked down).

I'm wondering though how you originally ran into this case, though.
If there is no more room in the tree node, we should have never
entered ext4_ext_extent_index() in the first place.  Was this a
theoretical concern or did you actually see this happen.  And if so,
was it due to a file system corruption, or another bug someplace else.

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