linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 01/74] libext2fs: don't overflow when punching indirect blocks with large blocks

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, 12 Dec 2013 12:06:46 -0500
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/74] libext2fs: don't overflow when punching indirect
 blocks with large blocks

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:18:21PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On a FS with a rather large blockize (> 4K), the old block map
> structure can construct a fat enough "tree" (or whatever we call that
> lopsided thing) that (at least in theory) one could create mappings
> for logical blocks higher than 32 bits.  In practice this doesn't
> happen, but the 'max' and 'iter' variables that the punch helpers use
> will overflow because the BLOCK_SIZE_BITS shifts are too large to fit
> a 32-bit variable.  The current variable declarations also cause punch
> to fail on TIND-mapped blocks even if the file is < 16T.  So enlarge
> the fields to fit.
> 
> Yes this is an obscure corner case, but it seems a little silly if we
> can't punch a file's block 300,000,000 on a 64k-block filesystem.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>

Thanks, applied.

					- 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