linux-ext4 - Re: ext4_block_to_path block

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:	Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:21:05 -0400
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ext4_block_to_path block > max warning.

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:22:44AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
 > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:35:55PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > Not sure what I did to trigger this, but it's happened a few times while fuzzing syscalls.
 > > Rebooted and fscked, didn't find anything wrong.
 > > 
 > > [ 5084.436288] EXT4-fs warning (device sda1): ext4_block_to_path:105: block 1874853625 > max in inode 34
 > > [ 5167.723925] EXT4-fs warning (device sda1): ext4_block_to_path:105: block 2507988634 > max in inode 34
 > 
 > Yes, this wouldn't be a problem that would be be reflected in an fsck
 > problem.  What warning indicates is that there was an attempt to write
 > to file offset which is larger than what is supported by using
 > indirect blocks.  (Presumably this was probably a ext3 file system
 > mounted using ext4?)
 
Yeah, think so. That was my /boot partition it wandered into.

	Dave

--
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