linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 11/31] libext2fs: ind_punch() must not stop examining blocks prematurely

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: <20131007134315.GH4540@thunk.org>
Date:	Mon, 7 Oct 2013 09:43:15 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/31] libext2fs: ind_punch() must not stop examining
 blocks prematurely

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 06:27:53PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> When we're iterating the main loop in ind_punch(), "offset" tracks how far
> we've progressed into the block map, "start" tells us where to start punching,
> and "count" tells us how many blocks we are to punch after "start".  Therefore,
> we would like to break out of the loop once the "offset" that we're looking at
> has progressed past the end of the punch range.  Unfortunately, if start !=0,
> the if-break clause in the loop causes us to break out of the loop early.
> 
> Therefore, change the breakout test to terminate the loop at the correct time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>

Applied, thanks.  Again, it's my bad for not including more test cases
when originally implementing the ext2fs_punch() funciton, but one of
these days, we should add better testing for this function.

      	       	      	  	 	 - 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