linux-ext4 - Re: [RFC PATCH 10/17] signed int -> blk64_t to fix bugs at 2^31

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, 13 Nov 2008 21:42:52 -0600
From:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
To:	Valerie Aurora Henson <vaurora@...hat.com>
CC:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/17] signed int -> blk64_t to fix bugs at 2^31 -
 2^32 blocks

Valerie Aurora Henson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:57:42PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>> On Nov 11, 2008  19:43 -0800, Valerie Aurora Henson wrote:
>>> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c b/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
>>> index 7235f7d..71ad445 100644
>>> --- a/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
>>> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/alloc_tables.c
>>> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_allocate_group_table(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group,
>>> -		int prev_block = 0;
>>> +		blk64_t prev_block = 0;
>>> @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_allocate_group_table(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group,
>>>  	if (flexbg_size) {
>>> -		int prev_block = 0;
>>> +		blk64_t prev_block = 0;
>> These appear to be defects in the base code and should be landed ASAP
>> (as int -> blk_t) independently of this patch series.
> 
> Agreed.  Ted, is this a good format for you or do you want me to
> regenerate against something?

Is it?

        if (flexbg_size) {
                int prev_block = 0;
                if (group && fs->group_desc[group-1].bg_block_bitmap)
                        prev_block =
fs->group_desc[group-1].bg_block_bitmap;
                start_blk = flexbg_offset(fs, group, prev_block, bmap,
                                                 0, rem_grps, 1);
                last_blk = ext2fs_group_last_block(fs, last_grp);
        }

bg_block_bitmap is only a __u32, and that's what we assign to prev_block.

Just a quick scan, but isn't this just a relative block in the group?

-Eric

> -VAL
> --
> 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