linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 12/18] e2fsck: toggle checksum verification error reporting appropriately

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: <20140727233721.GA6725@thunk.org>
Date:	Sun, 27 Jul 2014 19:37:22 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/18] e2fsck: toggle checksum verification error
 reporting appropriately

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:34:53PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> There are a few mistakes in the checksum verification error reporting
> logic.  First, when we're doing a re-check of an inode that failed
> earlier, we must never ignore checksum errors.  Second, if we're
> performing sanity checks after an initial checksum verification
> failure, then we /should/ disable checksum error reporting for
> block_iterate because that function will re-read the inode from disk.
> This fixes the numerous "inode checksum failure" problems that cause
> e2fsck to abort.

I'm starting to wonder if we just set IGNORE_CSUM_ERRORS when we open
the file system, and explicitly check the checksums in e2fsck.  It
might make the logic clearer, especially when we start trying to be a
bit more sophisticated in handling checksum errors.

Otherwise, if we get a checksum error, we would have to set the flag
and then retry the read.

					- 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