linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix to read empty directory blocks correctly in 64k blocksize filesystems

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]

Message-ID: <20090217000509.GI23758@mini-me.lan>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:05:09 -0500
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc:	Wei Yongjun <yjwei@...fujitsu.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Fix to read empty directory blocks correctly in
	64k blocksize filesystems

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 04:32:56PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> There are probably a dozen other places in the ext* code that expect
> blocksize <= 65536, so I don't think this new encoding is really helping
> us at all.  We are already restricted to 2^32-1 inodes due to the dirent
> format and I expect we will have changed the dirent format by that time
> anyways.

I can only find one other place, actually, which would be the extended
attribute code --- e_value_offs is a 16 bit offset (although we could
steal bits form e_value block if necessary).

> I'd rather keep this change as simple as possible (i.e. the original
> 65535 or 0 values, preferring 65535).

For 64k block sizes, I've kept this, although I preferred 0 since it's
a cleaner change if we want to allow bigger blocksize alternative.  I
don't think 65535 is any worse than 0 in terms of detecting directory
corruption.

					- Ted
--
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