linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH] ext4: Prevent massive fs corruption if verifying the block bitmap fails

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, 17 Jul 2013 15:55:03 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Prevent massive fs corruption if verifying the
 block bitmap fails

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:43:56PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> I also wrote a script that fills a fs, maliciously marks all the fs metadata
> blocks as free, and writes more files to the fs, with the result that you
> corrupt the metadata.  I wonder if it's feasible to modify mballoc to check
> that it's not handing out well known metadata locations to files?

We have that --- it's the block_validity mount option.  I use it
regularly for testing.  It's off by default because it does take a bit
more CPU time for every single block allocation and deallocation.  It
would be useful if someone who had access to fast PCIe-attached flash
tried to measure the CPU utilization of a metadata-intensive workload
(such as fs_mark) with and without block_validity.  If the overhead is
negligible, we could enable this by default, and remove the mount
option.

							- 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