linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/5] jbd: Fail to load a journal if it is too short

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: <20090721165014.GI4231@webber.adilger.int>
Date:	Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:50:14 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] jbd: Fail to load a journal if it is too short

On Jul 21, 2009  09:19 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:04:15 +0200 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > Due to on disk corruption, it can happen that journal is too short. Fail
> > to load it in such case so that we don't oops somewhere later.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Nageswara R Sastry <rnsastry@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > ---
> >  fs/jbd/journal.c |    6 ++++++
> >  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/jbd/journal.c b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > index 737f724..94a64a1 100644
> > --- a/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > +++ b/fs/jbd/journal.c
> > @@ -848,6 +848,12 @@ static int journal_reset(journal_t *journal)
> >  
> >  	first = be32_to_cpu(sb->s_first);
> >  	last = be32_to_cpu(sb->s_maxlen);
> > +	if (first + JFS_MIN_JOURNAL_BLOCKS > last + 1) {
> > +		printk(KERN_ERR "JBD: Journal too short (blocks %lu-%lu).\n",
> > +		       first, last);
> > +		journal_fail_superblock(journal);
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	journal->j_first = first;
> >  	journal->j_last = last;
> 
> It's odd that sb->s_first/s_maxlen are 32-bit and
> journal->j_first/j_last are unsigned long.
> 
> These things will only ever be 32-bit unless we change the journal
> superblock.

The jbd on disk structure and APIs cannot handle 64-bit block numbers.
That is one of the first changes we made for jbd2 so that it is possible
to store either 32-bit or 64-bit block numbers in a transaction.  I don't
think that needs to be fixed for the jbd code.

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