linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] fix bogus BUG

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: <20090313010940.GO17104@mit.edu>
Date:	Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:09:40 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@...tum.de>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix bogus BUG_ONs in in mballoc code

On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:46:57PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Thiemo Nagel reported that:
> 
> # dd if=/dev/zero of=image.ext4 bs=1M count=2
> # mkfs.ext4 -v -F -b 1024 -m 0 -g 512 -G 4 -I 128 -N 1 \
>   -O large_file,dir_index,flex_bg,extent,sparse_super image.ext4
> # mount -o loop image.ext4 mnt/
> # dd if=/dev/zero of=mnt/file
> 
> oopsed, with a BUG_ON in ext4_mb_normalize_request because
> size == EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP
> 
> It appears to me (esp. after talking to Andreas) that the BUG_ON
> is bogus; a request of exactly EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP should
> be allowed, though larger sizes do indicate a problem.
> 
> Fix that an another (apparently rare) codepath with a similar check.

Hmm.... is this at all likely to happen with a standard ext4
filesystem parameters?  Or was this triggered because of the
artifially set -g 512 parameter?  The question is whether we should
try pushing this to Linus at this point, or let this wait until the
merge window opens.

Opinions?

						= 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