linux-ext4 - Re: your mail

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]

Date:	Fri, 14 May 2010 18:07:26 -0400
From:	tytso@....edu
To:	Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
Cc:	curtw@...gle.com, fmayhar@...gle.com, mrubin@...gle.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: your mail

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 02:39:45PM -0700, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> This patch changes e2fsck to use the same checking on the validity
> of an extent as the kernel ext4 is using.

Actually, the better fix is to explicitly test for extent.e_blk == 0.
The kernel test works because at the moment nothing creates file
systems where s_first_data_block is anything other than 0 or 1.  But
technically speaking, having an extent which begins at
s_first_data_block isn't actually _wrong_.  It might overlap with fs
metadata, but pass1b will handle that.  The reason why it doesn't in
the case of 0 is because 0 is a special case and also means "there's
no block present" when returned by ext2fs_block_iterate.

Arguably the kernel should be changed to something similar, but in
practice it won't make a difference in practice.  E2fsck can do a
slightly better job recovering in the case of 1k block filesystems, so
this patch is slightly better.

						- Ted

commit e6238d3708d328851bfdff7580d1b8504c7cf2e4
Author: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Date:   Fri May 14 18:03:14 2010 -0400

    e2fsck: Explicitly reject extents that begin at physical block 0 as illegal

    In the case where s_first_data_block is 1, we need to explictly reject
    an extent whose starting physical block is zero.

    Thanks to Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com> for finding this bug.

    Addresses-Google-Bug: #2573806

    Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>

diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
index 5e2ecc7..c35937f 100644
--- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
+++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
@@ -1694,7 +1694,8 @@ static void scan_extent_node(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx,
 		is_dir = LINUX_S_ISDIR(pctx->inode->i_mode);

 		problem = 0;
-		if (extent.e_pblk < ctx->fs->super->s_first_data_block ||
+		if (extent.e_pblk == 0 ||
+		    extent.e_pblk < ctx->fs->super->s_first_data_block ||
 		    extent.e_pblk >= ctx->fs->super->s_blocks_count)
 			problem = PR_1_EXTENT_BAD_START_BLK;
 		else if (extent.e_lblk < start_block)
--
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