[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100723124657.GA13090@thunk.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 08:46:57 -0400
From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: shenghui <crosslonelyover@...il.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] check name_len before down_read xattr_sem and sb_read
in ext2_xattr_get
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:37:59AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Checking of name_len is fine as you did it. But I wanted to point out
> that if name_len is greater than 255, you then go to 'cleanup' label which
> tries to do up_read(&EXT2_I(inode)->xattr_sem). But that's a bug because
> after you moved the code, we don't hold xattr_sem at the moment we check
> name_len.
Yup, you could just return -ERANGE right there.
The simpler fix though might be to just delete the check altogether.
Neither ext3 nor ext4 checks for the length of the xattr name in their
_xattr_get() function. Instead they'll just do the search, and then
return -ENODATA. That seems legit; there can be no entries larger
than 255, so saying the extended attribute doesn't exist is quite
correct. There is a check in the _xattr_set() functions for both ext3
and ext4, which is quite correct and proper.
Does that mean we'll end up doing a search before returning an error
--- yes, but I don't think that matters. Why should we care about
optimizing an error case? It's not like this is going to be in a
timing sensitive part of an application.... (of course the same
consideration could apply to your patch as well).
- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists