linux-ext4 - Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inline.c:1943!

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: <58826195.60004@partition-saving.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:14:29 +0100
From:   Damien Guibouret <damien.guibouret@...tition-saving.com>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
CC:     George Spelvin <linux@...encehorizons.net>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inline.c:1943!

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 03:21:28AM -0500, George Spelvin wrote:
> 
>>I was trying to rmdir an empty directory in lost+found that accumulated
>>during my recent problems.
>>
>>EXT4-fs (md3): mounted filesystem with writeback data mode. Opts: data=writeback,delalloc
>>
>>$ cd /mountpoint/lost+found
>>$ rmdir \#1625089/
>>
>>------------[ cut here ]------------
>>kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inline.c:1943!
> 
> 
>>debugfs:  stat <1625089>
>>Inode: 1625089   Type: directory    Mode:  0775   Flags: 0x10000000
>>Generation: 927350643    Version: 0x00000000:00000004
>>User:  1000   Group:   161   Project:     0   Size: 132
>>File ACL: 1664090185    Directory ACL: 0
>>Links: 0   Blockcount: 8
>>Fragment:  Address: 0    Number: 0    Size: 0
>> ctime: 0x587f2034:472c74ec -- Wed Jan 18 02:58:44 2017
>> atime: 0x56b9e2f8:b68a7658 -- Tue Feb  9 08:00:40 2016
>> mtime: 0x56c1bc4b:a7765de8 -- Mon Feb 15 06:53:47 2016
>>crtime: 0x56ba9eb4:a51d90ac -- Tue Feb  9 21:21:40 2016
>>Size of extra inode fields: 32
>>Extended attributes:
>>  system.data (72)
>>Inode checksum: 0xe2f12fc5
>>Size of inline data: 132
> 
> 
> OK, so the problem seems the inode in question has the INLINE_DATA
> flag set, but i_blocks is non-zero.  And it looks like the data was
> actually stored in an exernal data block, and the in-line xattr wasn't
> present.
> 
> e2fsck should be checking and complaining if this is the case.  If
> not, it's a bug in e2fsck.
> 
> And the kernel certainy shouldn't be BUG'ing when it comes across
> what is clearly a case of file system corruption.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 					- 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
> 
> 
Hello,

Perhaps I am wrong, but as the inode has a file ACL, the blockcount should be 
different from 0?
So it seems valid on this point. Or is there something that prevent inlined file 
to have ACL?

Regards,

Damien
--
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