linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Ensure Inode flags consistency are checked in build time

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]

Message-ID: <20121203170337.GA3548@andromeda.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:03:37 -0200
From:	Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>
To:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, dmonakhov@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Ensure Inode flags consistency are checked in
 build time

Hi Lukas,

> 
> I wonder why Dmitry when he wrote this noted that we can not do
> compile time test on enum values. I have to admit I do not know
> enough about that, but it seems to work just fine with your patch,
> so can you give us some explanation in the commit description why
> that is not true ?
> 
I can't say why a build-time check was not done at the first time, but I can say
that there is no problem im compare a macro with an enum at the build time, once
enums are treated as constants by the compiler, so, there is no problem in
compare an enum type variable with a constant, once both are constants and won't
change during program's run-time.

Adding it to the commit description and resending a v2

> Also if the values are not matching we get this error:
> 
> error: size of unnamed array is negative
> 
> which is not explain the problem at all, but I guess it's enough,
> since it points to the variable which does not match.
> 
> Adding Dmitry to the cc.
> 
> Thanks!
> -Lukas
> 
> > ---
> >  fs/ext4/ext4.h  | 29 +++++++++++++----------------
> >  fs/ext4/super.c |  1 +
> >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > index 3c20de1..4ac0523 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> > @@ -451,25 +451,22 @@ enum {
> >  	EXT4_INODE_RESERVED	= 31,	/* reserved for ext4 lib */
> >  };
> >  
> > -#define TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) (EXT4_##FLAG##_FL == (1 << EXT4_INODE_##FLAG))
> > -#define CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) if (!TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG)) { \
> > -	printk(KERN_EMERG "EXT4 flag fail: " #FLAG ": %d %d\n", \
> > -		EXT4_##FLAG##_FL, EXT4_INODE_##FLAG); BUG_ON(1); }
> > -
> > -/*
> > - * Since it's pretty easy to mix up bit numbers and hex values, and we
> > - * can't do a compile-time test for ENUM values, we use a run-time
> > - * test to make sure that EXT4_XXX_FL is consistent with respect to
> > - * EXT4_INODE_XXX.  If all is well the printk and BUG_ON will all drop
> > - * out so it won't cost any extra space in the compiled kernel image.
> > - * But it's important that these values are the same, since we are
> > - * using EXT4_INODE_XXX to test for the flag values, but EXT4_XX_FL
> > - * must be consistent with the values of FS_XXX_FL defined in
> > - * include/linux/fs.h and the on-disk values found in ext2, ext3, and
> > - * ext4 filesystems, and of course the values defined in e2fsprogs.
> > +/*
> > + * Since it's pretty easy to mix up bit numbers and hex values, we use a
> > + * build-time check to make sure that EXT4_XXX_FL is consistent with respect to
> > + * EXT4_INODE_XXX. If all is well, the macros will be dropped, so, it won't cost
> > + * any extra space in the compiled kernel image, otherwise, the build will fail.
> > + * It's important that these values are the same, since we are using
> > + * EXT4_INODE_XXX to test for flag values, but EXT4_XXX_FL must be consistent
> > + * with the values of FS_XXX_FL defined in include/linux/fs.h and the on-disk
> > + * values found in ext2, ext3 and ext4 filesystems, and of course the values
> > + * defined in e2fsprogs.
> >   *
> >   * It's not paranoia if the Murphy's Law really *is* out to get you.  :-)
> >   */
> > +#define TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) (EXT4_##FLAG##_FL == (1 << EXT4_INODE_##FLAG))
> > +#define CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG) BUILD_BUG_ON(!TEST_FLAG_VALUE(FLAG))
> > +
> >  static inline void ext4_check_flag_values(void)
> >  {
> >  	CHECK_FLAG_VALUE(SECRM);
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index 80928f7..e6f6f8b 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -5282,6 +5282,7 @@ static int __init ext4_init_fs(void)
> >  	ext4_li_info = NULL;
> >  	mutex_init(&ext4_li_mtx);
> >  
> > +	/* Build-time check for flags consistency */
> >  	ext4_check_flag_values();
> >  
> >  	for (i = 0; i < EXT4_WQ_HASH_SZ; i++) {
> > 
> --
> 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

-- 
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