linux-ext4 - Re: [v2] ext4: fix possible non-initialized variable

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]

Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:10:57 -0300
From:	Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2] ext4: fix possible non-initialized variable

> > OK, I've applied this patch to my tree.  However, I would really
> > appreciate if you could indeed review the callers for ext4_bread() and
> > ext3_bread() and send patches for ext3 and ext4 as you have suggested,
> > thanks!!
> > 
> On my todo list.
> > 						- Ted
Ted,

In case of ext4_add_entry() I'm supposing to make the function call ext4_error()
and return -EIO in the case where ext4_bread() returns NULL and err is 0'ed,
does that matches with your thoughts or is there a better way to handle with
this?
I'm talking about ext4_add_entry() behavious mainly as an example to better
understand how we should handle these situations. In case of ext4_add_entry(),
based on our discussions ext4_bread() should not fail once dir entries should
not have HOLES, so, a NULL return should indicate a on-disk corruption or an I/O
error.

Does that makes sense?

-- 
--Carlos
--
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