linux-ext4 - Re: e2fsck aborts when invalid indirect block is encountered

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: <20110901085204.GA12928@notebook.chenhuan>
Date:	Thu, 1 Sep 2011 16:52:04 +0800
From:	Chen Huan <chenhuan@...hpc.ac.cn>
To:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e2fsck aborts when invalid indirect block is encountered

* Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> [2011-09-01 02:17:14 -0600]:

> On 2011-09-01, at 12:34 AM, Chen Huan wrote:
> > During a recent read-only checking of an corrupted ext3 file system,
> > I found a strange behaviour of e2fsck: when an inode has an invalid
> > indirect block number, e2fsck aborts with the following message:
> > 
> >    e2fsck 1.39 (29-May-2006)
> 
> Please retest with a new version of e2fsprogs.  The current release
> version is 1.41.14, and the work-in-progress for version 1.42 is
> available via Git.

The problem remains in e2fsck 1.42-WIP (02-Jul-2011)

> 
> >    Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> >    Inode 12 has illegal block(s).  Clear? no
> > 
> >    Illegal block #-1 (4294967295) in inode 12.  IGNORED.
> >    Error while iterating over blocks in inode 12: Illegal indirect block found
> >    e2fsck: aborted
> > 
> > You can reproduce it with this code snippet:
> > 
> >    #!/bin/sh
> > 
> >    dev=/dev/sde
> >    mnt=/mnt
> > 
> >    mkfs.ext3 -F $dev
> >    mount $dev $mnt
> >    dd if=/dev/zero of=$mnt/file bs=1M count=1
> >    umount $dev
> >    debugfs -w -R 'sif file block[IND] 0xFFFFFFFF' $dev
> >    e2fsck -f -n $dev
> > 
> > Doing a fixing without -n option can safely delete this bad blocknum.
> > 
> > My question is: Is this behaviour a bug or intended?
> > --
> > 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
> 
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
--
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