linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error message

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: <20140505230829.GK8434@birch.djwong.org>
Date:	Mon, 5 May 2014 16:08:29 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc:	tytso@....edu, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error
 message

On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 
> > Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:13:34 -0700
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> > To: tytso@....edu, darrick.wong@...cle.com
> > Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error
> >     message
> > 
> > Make the "EA block passes checks but fails checksum" message less
> > strange.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> > ---
> >  e2fsck/problem.c |   12 +++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> > index 0999399..ec20bd1 100644
> > --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> > +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> > @@ -992,19 +992,17 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
> >  	     "extent\n\t(logical @b %c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
> >  	  PROMPT_FIX, 0 },
> >  
> > -	/* Extended attribute block checksum for inode does not match. */
> > +	/* Extended attribute block checksum does not match. */
> 
> The "for inode" is still there in the message, so I do not think
> there is a reason to remove it from the comment.

Oops.

> >  	{ PR_1_EA_BLOCK_CSUM_INVALID,
> > -	  N_("Extended attribute @a @b %b checksum for @i %i does not "
> > -	     "match.  "),
> > +	  N_("@a @b %b checksum for @i %i does not match.  "),
> >  	  PROMPT_CLEAR, PR_INITIAL_CSUM },
> >  
> >  	/*
> > -	 * Extended attribute block passes checks, but checksum for inode does
> > -	 * not match.
> > +	 * Extended attribute block passes checks, but checksum does not
> > +	 * match.
> >  	 */
> >  	{ PR_1_EA_BLOCK_ONLY_CSUM_INVALID,
> > -	  N_("Extended attribute @a @b %b passes checks, but checksum for "
> > -	     "@i %i does not match.  "),
> > +	  N_("@a @b %b passes checks, but checksum does not match.  "),
> 
> Is there a reason to remove the inode number from the message ?

For whatever reason, I was confused by this message and thought it was
referring to a checksum failure in the inode itself.  On the other hand, it's
helpful to map an EA block back to an inode, so perhaps the message should be
changed to:

"Inode XXX's extended attribute block YYY passes checks, but checksum does not
match."

Now that I look at the other metadata_csum checks, the failure message starts
with "@i %i..." so these two might as well follow the convention.  Sorry that I
seem to have strayed from it.

--D
> 
> Thanks!
> -Lukas
> 
> >  	  PROMPT_FIX, 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
> > 
> --
> 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