linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: Fix incorrect interior node logical start values

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:	Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:43:44 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
CC:	ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: Fix incorrect interior node logical start values

On 11/29/12 10:40 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>
>> But it's a weird inconsistency isn't it, and fixing it up in fsck should
>> be the right thing to do anyway?
> 
> Oh, I agree, but basically, as a result I'm going to put this patch on
> hold until we do a bit more testing.  I'm just not ready to push this
> out on the maint branch just yet.....
> 
> (The general rule is that I want to keep the maint branch in a state
> where someone who wants to take a snapshot for a production
> environment should feel generally comfortable to do this --- modulo
> rollout/integration testing, of course.  I'll keep it on an
> es/fsck-int-node-fixup branch to make sure we don't lose it, but it's
> something where I want to add some additional testing before I'm
> comfortable rolling it out to the maint branch, just to make sure it
> doesn't trigger any regression.)

FWIW, I hacked xfstests to always check the scratch device after any
test uses it, too, and I'm re-running with this change to be sure
it'll run over every fs modification xfstests makes ...

I'll send that upstream, too.

> BTW, while I was experimenting with test cases I found another related
> bug (but not a regression) where e2fsck isn't able to fix up a
> specific fs corruption (see attached).  It's unlikely to happen in
> real life, but given how easily I was able to create something that
> e2fsck can't fix, it's clear we were missing some synthetic test
> cases.

At one point I turned fsfuzzer into fsckfuzzer, but it was a
"My God, it's full of bugs!" moment for most fileystems, IIRC.  ;)

But if anyone wants to generate some fsck bugs to fix . . .

-Eric

> 						- 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