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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <0E72E3B2-DAA7-45F4-845D-AF4E76174A33@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:55:57 -0500 From: Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: Haogang Chen <haogangchen@...il.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@...il.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] FS: ext4: fix integer overflow in alloc_flex_gd() On Feb 20, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Hm this raises a few questions I think. > > On the one hand, making sure the kmalloc arg doesn't overflow here is > certainly a good thing and probably the right thing to do in the short term. > > So I guess: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> > > for that, to close the hole. Another possibility is to wait for knalloc/kmalloc_array in the -mm tree, which is basically the non-zeroing version of kcalloc that performs overflow checking. > Doesn't this also mean that a valid s_log_groups_per_flex (i.e. 31) > will fail in this resize code? That would be an unexpected outcome. > 2^31 groups per flex is a little crazy, but still technically valid > according to the limits in the code. Or we could limit s_log_groups_per_flex/groups_per_flex to a reasonable upper bound in ext4_fill_flex_info(), right? - xi -- 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