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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150917235524.GE10390@birch.djwong.org> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:55:24 -0700 From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com> To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] resize2fs: clear uninit BG if allocating from new group On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 05:42:18PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: > If resize2fs_get_alloc_block() allocates from a BLOCK_UNINIT > group, nothing clears the UNINIT flag, so it is skipped when we > go to write out modified bitmaps. This leads to post-resize2fs > e2fsck errors; used blocks in UNINIT groups, not marked in the > block bitmap. > > This shamelessly cuts & pastes clear_block_uninit() into > resize2fs.c, and my problem goes away. Hmm... which test was it that exhibited this error? > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com> > --- > > I've kind of lost the thread on resize2fs lately, so maybe this is > a hack job? At least it highlights the issue, even if it's not > quite right. Passes "make check" here and seems ok to me... > > Thanks, > -Eric > > diff --git a/resize/resize2fs.c b/resize/resize2fs.c > index 07c6a0c..0f202bd 100644 > --- a/resize/resize2fs.c > +++ b/resize/resize2fs.c > @@ -1614,12 +1614,27 @@ static blk64_t get_new_block(ext2_resize_t rfs) > } > } > > +static void clear_block_uninit(ext2_filsys fs, dgrp_t group) > +{ > + if (!ext2fs_has_group_desc_csum(fs) || > + !(ext2fs_bg_flags_test(fs, group, EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT))) > + return; > + > + /* uninit block bitmaps are now initialized in read_bitmaps() */ > + > + ext2fs_bg_flags_clear(fs, group, EXT2_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT); > + ext2fs_group_desc_csum_set(fs, group); > + ext2fs_mark_super_dirty(fs); > + ext2fs_mark_bb_dirty(fs); > +} > + > static errcode_t resize2fs_get_alloc_block(ext2_filsys fs, > blk64_t goal EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)), > blk64_t *ret) > { > ext2_resize_t rfs = (ext2_resize_t) fs->priv_data; > blk64_t blk; > + int group; > > blk = get_new_block(rfs); > if (!blk) > @@ -1632,6 +1647,12 @@ static errcode_t resize2fs_get_alloc_block(ext2_filsys fs, > > ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(rfs->old_fs->block_map, blk); > ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(rfs->new_fs->block_map, blk); > + > + group = ext2fs_group_of_blk2(rfs->old_fs, blk); > + clear_block_uninit(rfs->old_fs, group); Why does the old fs need to have BLOCK_UNINIT cleared? --D > + group = ext2fs_group_of_blk2(rfs->new_fs, blk); > + clear_block_uninit(rfs->new_fs, group); > + > *ret = (blk64_t) blk; > return 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists