linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH,STABLE 2.6.29 14/18] ext4: Ignore i_file_acl_high unless EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT

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: <20090603181728.GP9002@webber.adilger.int>
Date:	Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:17:28 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH,STABLE 2.6.29 14/18] ext4: Ignore i_file_acl_high	unless
 EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_64BIT is present

On Jun 02, 2009  08:07 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Don't try to look at i_file_acl_high unless the INCOMPAT_64BIT feature
> bit is set.  The field is normally zero, but older versions of e2fsck
> didn't automatically check to make sure of this, so in the spirit of
> "be liberal in what you accept", don't look at i_file_acl_high unless
> we are using a 64-bit filesystem.

Should we do the same with other "_hi" fields in the inode?  There are
many cases like this for EXT4_DESC_SIZE(sb) >= EXT4_MIN_DESC_SIZE_64BIT
in super.c.  Does e2fsck check and zero those already?

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.

--
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