linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 11/18] libext2/fsck: correctly preserve fs flags when modifying ignore-csum-error flag

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]

Date:	Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:27:46 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/18] libext2/fsck: correctly preserve fs flags when
 modifying ignore-csum-error flag

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:34:47PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> nor is it correct
> to assume that we can unconditionally set (or clear) the "ignore csum
> error" flag bit.

For functions inside e2fsck, why is this true?  All of the places
where we are are EXT2_FLAG_IGNORE_CSUM_ERRORS are places where we set
it, and then clear it after an ext2 call.  So as near as I can tell it
shouldn't matter.

I can understand why we need to be careful for functions inside
libext2fs, but in that particular case, none of the downstream
functions of ext2fs_read_inode_full() modify fs->flags.

So I'm really puzzled what problem this patch actually solves.  Was
this a theoretical concern, or was there something I missed?

       		   	       	   	 - 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