linux-ext4 - [PATCH] e2fsck: skip low dtime check if the number of inodes > s_mkfs

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1398190752-12964-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu>
Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:19:12 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	patrik@...nik.sk, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Subject: [PATCH] e2fsck: skip low dtime check if the number of inodes > s_mkfs_time

We already skip the low dtime check if the number of inods is greater
than the last mount or last written time.  However, if a very large
file system is resized sufficiently large that the number of inodes is
greater than when the file system was original created, we can end up
running afoul of the low dtime check.  This results in a large number
of false positives which e2fsck can fix up without causing any
problems, but it can induce a large amount of anxiety for the system
administrator.

Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Reported-by: Patrik Horník <patrik@...nik.sk>
---
 e2fsck/pass1.c | 10 ++++++----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c
index 38b221c..9ef724a 100644
--- a/e2fsck/pass1.c
+++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c
@@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ void e2fsck_pass1(e2fsck_t ctx)
 	const char	*old_op;
 	unsigned int	save_type;
 	int		imagic_fs, extent_fs;
-	int		busted_fs_time = 0;
+	int		low_dtime_check = 1;
 	int		inode_size;
 
 	init_resource_track(&rtrack, ctx->fs->io);
@@ -708,8 +708,10 @@ void e2fsck_pass1(e2fsck_t ctx)
 					      ctx->fs->group_desc_count)))
 		goto endit;
 	if ((fs->super->s_wtime < fs->super->s_inodes_count) ||
-	    (fs->super->s_mtime < fs->super->s_inodes_count))
-		busted_fs_time = 1;
+	    (fs->super->s_mtime < fs->super->s_inodes_count) ||
+	    (fs->super->s_mkfs_time &&
+	     fs->super->s_mkfs_time < fs->super->s_inodes_count))
+		low_dtime_check = 0;
 
 	if ((fs->super->s_feature_incompat & EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_MMP) &&
 	    fs->super->s_mmp_block > fs->super->s_first_data_block &&
@@ -988,7 +990,7 @@ void e2fsck_pass1(e2fsck_t ctx)
 		 * than nothing.  The right answer is that there
 		 * shouldn't be any bugs in the orphan list handling.  :-)
 		 */
-		if (inode->i_dtime && !busted_fs_time &&
+		if (inode->i_dtime && low_dtime_check &&
 		    inode->i_dtime < ctx->fs->super->s_inodes_count) {
 			if (fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_LOW_DTIME, &pctx)) {
 				inode->i_dtime = inode->i_links_count ?
-- 
1.9.0

--
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