| 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: <20131008155859.GG17896@thunk.org> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:58:59 -0400 From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/31] libext2fs: Fix ext2fs_open2() truncation of the superblock parameter On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 06:28:12PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Since it's possible for very large filesystems to store backup superblocks at > very large (> 2^32) block numbers, we need to be able to handle the case of a > caller directing us to read one of these high-numbered backups. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> Hmm... This is technically true, but I'm wondering how much we should care. In practice, users almost always use the first couple of backup superblocks. I could imagine a situation with a RAID array where the first disk(s) were trashed, so we needed to use a backup superblock beyond 2**32, but it's a bit unlikely. If there was some other reason why we needed to add a new ext2fs_open3 variant, it would certainly be a good thing to fix. But I'm wondering if it's worth adding a new interface just for this. Is there perhaps any other extensions to ext2fs_open() that we might want to make, either now or in the future? Regards, - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists