linux-ext4 - Re: [Patch/BUG] (ext4) s_mb_maxs[] of ext4_sb

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]

Message-Id: <20081217114124.2011.E1E9C6FF@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:45:31 +0900
From:	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	tytso@....edu, adilger@....com, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>,
	Linux Kernel ML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch/BUG] (ext4) s_mb_maxs[] of ext4_sb_info is too small size

> Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > Hello.
> > 
> > I chased the cause of following ext4 oops report which is tested on
> > ia64 box.
> > 
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12018
> > 
> > The cause is the size of s_mb_maxs array that is
> > defined as "unsigned short" in ext4_sb_info structure.
> > Unsigned short is too small.
> > 
> > In this bug report, Li-san formatted with 64Kbyte block size like
> > the following. Ia64 has 64Kbyte page size, then this
> > block size is acceptable.
> > 
> > # mkfs.ext4 -b 65536 /dev/md0
> > 
> > In this case, the maximum value of s_mb_maxs[] becomes 
> > (blocksize << 2) = 256K by the following code.
> > 
> > 2482 int ext4_mb_init(struct super_block *sb, int needs_recovery)
> >                : 
> >                :
> > 2508         max = sb->s_blocksize << 2;    <---- max becomes 0x40000.
> > 2509         do {
> > 2510                 sbi->s_mb_offsets[i] = offset;
> > 2511                 sbi->s_mb_maxs[i] = max;            <--- over flow!!!
> > 2512                 offset += 1 << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - i);
> > 2513                 max = max >> 1;
> > 2514                 i++;
> > 2515         } while (i <= sb->s_blocksize_bits + 1);
> > 
> > Then, some s_mb_maxs[] becomes 0 due to overflow.
> > It is cause of this oops. The following patch is to fix it.
> 
> Looks good to mee; and these lines before it:
> 
>         sbi->s_mb_maxs[0] = sb->s_blocksize << 3;
>         sbi->s_mb_offsets[0] = 0;
> 
> mean that we would have a problem "even" on 8k blocks, yes?

Oh, Yes. :-)

Thanks.

-- 
Yasunori Goto 


--
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