linux-ext4 - Re: [RESEND][PATCH] dir_index: error out instead of BUG on corrupt hash dir limit

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:06:23 +0100
From:	"Duane Griffin" <duaneg@...da.com>
To:	"Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"ext4 development" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH] dir_index: error out instead of BUG on corrupt hash dir limit

On 10/09/2007, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> wrote:
> Duane Griffin wrote:
> > Sorry I missed this first time around. I came up with a very similar
> > fix recently, following a gentoo bug report.  However there are a few
> > more asserts later that you aren't currently handling. Below is an
> > incremental patch on top of yours that converts them too.
>
> Ah, good point... I focused a bit too much on the single problem at hand
> didn't I.  :)

Easy to do :)

> > Note that one
> > of them is in an if (0) block and maybe should be left alone -- what do
> > you think?
>
> If it's just there for debug, maybe leaving an assert is ok, to get a
> dump & system state etc.  If it is converted, a printk would probably be
> good so you know you're falling back, otherwise that extra checking is a
> bit pointless if it's silent.

Good point. Perhaps best to just back that part out.

> I wonder if
> we should fix up all the new error condition printk's a bit to be more
> descriptive of the problem at hand; for example, the one I sent should
> maybe say:
>
> +               ext3_warning(dir->i_sb, __FUNCTION__,
> +                            "Corrupt root limit in dir inode %ld\n", dir->i_ino);
>
> I wanted to leave the word "corrupt" in there, or at least something to
> clue in the user that maybe fsck is in order...

I struggled with the wording, too. I originally went with "Invalid dx
limit/count", but wasn't terribly happy with it. "Corrupt" is more
accurate and informative. Perhaps the warning should also explicitly
recommend running fsck:

"Corrupt root limit in dir inode %ld, running e2fsck is recommended\n"

Cheers,
Duane.

-- 
"I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan
-
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