linux-ext4 - Re: Potential bug in fs/ext4/inline.c?

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:	Thu, 21 Aug 2014 21:02:46 -0700
From:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:	gnehzuil.liu@...il.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Potential bug in fs/ext4/inline.c?

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 06:01:26PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> In ext4_find_inline_entry(), there is the following:
> 
> 	if (ext4_get_inline_size(dir) == EXT4_MIN_INLINE_DATA_SIZE)
> 		goto out;
> 
> Am I missing something, or shouldn't this be:
> 
> 	if (ext4_get_inline_size(dir) <= EXT4_MIN_INLINE_DATA_SIZE)
> 		goto out;
> 
> ?

I'm not sure it matters, since I see:

EXT4_I(inode)->i_inline_size = len + EXT4_MIN_INLINE_DATA_SIZE

scattered all over the code.  I'm not sure I like the idea that both ext4 and
e2fsprogs think that the inline data size is never <= 60, but afaict it doesn't
cause any problems.

--D

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 						- 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
--
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