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:	Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:43:41 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	TR Reardon <thomas_reardon@...mail.com>
Cc:	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/25] misc: zero s_jnl_blocks when removing internal
 journal

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 03:06:23PM -0400, TR Reardon wrote:
> If the change from journal_inode to journal_dev is/was made prior to the
> recent change, the s_jnl_blocks will have whatever it last had.  So if it
> started with journal_inode and then switched to journal_dev (again, prior to
> your fix) or no journal, the s_jnl_blocks will have the old journal_inode
> info, and adding/removing journal_dev does no clear it out.  For a new fs
> with created only with journal_dev, there is no issue.  I'm just arguing that
> *adding* journal_dev should also zero this out.

You would also want to zero out s_jnl_blocks if creating a journal on a mounted
FS, since there's no way to find the block map/ETB blocks; the best we can do
is hope the user runs e2fsck, which will fix it.

--D
> 
> +Reardon
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 09:43:42 -0700
> > From: darrick.wong@...cle.com
> > To: thomas_reardon@...mail.com
> > CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/25] misc: zero s_jnl_blocks when removing internal journal
> >
> > [cc linux-ext4]
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 10:09:55AM -0400, TR Reardon wrote:
> >> Note that this only works (zeroes out) when removing inode journal. Removing
> >> an existing journal_dev leaves s_jnl_blocks untouched. To be absolutely
> >> clean, perhaps it should be wiped in all removal cases?
> >
> > s_jnl_blocks shouldn't be set if an external journal is in use.
> >
> > (Unless it is somehow?)
> >
> > --D
> 
>  		 	   		  --
> 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
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists