linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] e2fsck: Correct ext4 dates generated by old kernels.

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: <CADQUmxVEyV796xTuy6LytketqEDsCQYH0vOpH79FSfo9mhgsEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:15:06 -0800
From:	Mark Harris <mhlk@....us>
To:	David Turner <novalis@...alis.org>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] e2fsck: Correct ext4 dates generated by old kernels.

> +/* When today's date is earlier than 2242, we assume that atimes,
> + * ctimes, and mtimes greater than 2242 are actually pre-1970 dates

...mtimes with years in the range 2310..2378 are...

> + * mis-encoded.
> + */
> +#define EXT4_EXTRA_NEGATIVE_DATE_CUTOFF 5 * (1ULL << 32)

Wouldn't 2242 be 0x200000000ULL, i.e. 2 * (1ULL << 32)?


> +
> +       /*
> +        * If the inode's extended atime (ctime, mtime) is stored in
> +        * the old, invalid format, the inode is corrupt.
> +        */
> +       if (sizeof(time_t) > 4 && ctx->now < EXT4_EXTRA_NEGATIVE_DATE_CUTOFF &&

Needs parentheses (

> +           CHECK_INODE_EXTRA_NEGATIVE_EPOCH(inode, atime) ||
> +           CHECK_INODE_EXTRA_NEGATIVE_EPOCH(inode, ctime) ||
> +           CHECK_INODE_EXTRA_NEGATIVE_EPOCH(inode, mtime)) {

)

> +
> +               if (!fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_EA_TIME_OUT_OF_RANGE, pctx))
> +                       return;
> +
> +               inode->i_atime_extra &= ~EXT4_EPOCH_MASK;
> +               inode->i_ctime_extra &= ~EXT4_EPOCH_MASK;
> +               inode->i_mtime_extra &= ~EXT4_EPOCH_MASK;

With e.g. 2039 atime and 1968 mtime, shouldn't only i_mtime_extra be altered?

> +               e2fsck_write_inode_full(ctx, pctx->ino, pctx->inode,
> +                                       EXT2_INODE_SIZE(sb), "pass1");
> +       }

 - Mark
--
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