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: <CAGW2f1G1=LE4B-BtT5oZidfW0SUO9rgN0dsKY4tLD2nLNFsYUQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 10:03:55 -0400 From: jon ernst <jonernst07@...il.com> To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> Cc: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: ext4_wait_block_bitmap() and ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait() handle bitmap verification differently On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 3 Oct 2013, jon ernst wrote: > >> Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 22:45:06 -0400 >> From: jon ernst <jonernst07@...il.com> >> To: "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org> >> Subject: ext4_wait_block_bitmap() and ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait() handle >> bitmap verification differently >> >> Hi, > > Hi Jon, > > Btw the patch has some issues and it seems to be badly formatted, or > even corrupted. You're also missing some Signed-off-by line and the > subject is not good either. Please see > Documentation/SubmittingPatches, use git to create patches and use > email client which does not automatically wrap your lines. Thanks for your instruction. I will pay attention. > >> >> I found that ext4_wait_block_bitmap() and >> ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait() handle bitmap verification >> differently. >> wait_block_bitmap() calls ext4_validate_block_bitmap() all the time. >> But read_block_bitmap_nowait() checks EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT, if it >> meets, it will skip ext4_validate_block_bitmap() >> >> In my opinion, they'd better do same thing. > > Why ? > >> In that way, we can also return "fail" in ext4_valid_block_bitmap() >> method when we meet FLEX_BG. > > This does not make sense at all. Why do you suggest that we should > "fail" in the case that we have FLEG_BG feature enabled (which is > default btw) ? > I was thinking when we have FLEG_BG feature enabled, we actually don't have valid bitmap in that block. So semantically , we don't have valid block bitmap there. >> >> >> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/balloc.c b/fs/ext4/balloc.c >> index dc5d572..366807a 100644 >> --- a/fs/ext4/balloc.c >> +++ b/fs/ext4/balloc.c >> @@ -319,7 +319,7 @@ static ext4_fsblk_t ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct >> super_block *sb, >> * or it has to also read the block group where the bitmaps >> * are located to verify they are set. >> */ >> - return 0; >> + return 1; >> } >> group_first_block = ext4_group_first_block_no(sb, block_group); >> >> @@ -472,8 +472,12 @@ int ext4_wait_block_bitmap(struct super_block >> *sb, ext4_group_t block_group, >> return 1; >> } >> clear_buffer_new(bh); >> - /* Panic or remount fs read-only if block bitmap is invalid */ >> - ext4_validate_block_bitmap(sb, desc, block_group, bh); >> + >> + if (desc->bg_flags & cpu_to_le16(EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT)) { >> + return 0; > > This is wrong from multiple reasons. First of all you're not holding > group lock so what is preventing others to actually initialize the > bitmap before you return 0 ? > Got it. > Secondly, uninit group will never get that far, because it'll be > initialized in ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait() and we will not > actually need to wait for the buffer. > Thank you! Very helpful information. Best, Jon > Thanks! > -Lukas > >> + } >> + /* Panic or remount fs read-only if block bitmap is invalid */ >> + ext4_validate_block_bitmap(sb, desc, block_group, bh); >> /* ...but check for error just in case errors=continue. */ >> return !buffer_verified(bh); >> } >> -- >> 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 >> -- 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