linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] introduce range check for extent pblock references

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: <20090207173239.GA25942@skywalker>
Date:	Sat, 7 Feb 2009 23:02:39 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@...tum.de>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce range check for extent pblock references

On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 04:36:58PM +0100, Thiemo Nagel wrote:
> This time I have aimed to catch all cases in which an invalid physical  
> block might be used and implemented checks directly in ext_pblock() and  
> idx_pblock() following the assumption that most of the times one of  
> these functions is called a device access to that address will follow.  
> If you think this is too heavy, I could also split the check from the  
> pblock calculation, but in that case I could only guess at which of the  
> several accesses to *_pblock() in extents.c a check would be necessary  
> and where it wouldn't and there would be the possibility of missing  
> something.


Do we want to check for validity every time we look at the physical
block of the extent. I guess that would be bad performance wise. I guess
we should check only once when we read the extent from the disk. ??

-aneesh
--
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