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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:23:27 -0500
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Alexey Lyashkov <alexey.lyashkov@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Fix panic with journal superblock flags printing.

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 07:24:17AM +0300, Alexey Lyashkov wrote:
> 1024 is jbd superblock size, and this constant widely used over e2fsprogs code.
> from this particular case it’s clear bug as jsb_buffer defined as.
> >>
>         char                    jsb_buffer[1024];

The jbd superblock size is 1024 bytes --- just as the ext4 superblock
is only 1024 bytes.  It may be *stored* in a 4k block, and the size of
the super block has nothingm to do with the size of the file system
block size.

It gets used here:

	if (exp_block_size != (int) ntohl(jsb->s_blocksize))
		fprintf(f, "Journal block size:       %u\n",
			(unsigned int)ntohl(jsb->s_blocksize));

The normal case is when the journal superblock size is the same as the
file system block size, and in that case, there's no reason to print
the journal block size.  It *can* happen where the journal block size
can be different from the file system block size.  The most likely
case is the one where an external journal is in use, and the external
journal is shared between two file systems, one which uses (say) a 4k
block size, and the other uses (say) a 1k block size.  The data
structures support this mode, but what we don't have is e2fsck support
for handling a journal replay where the journal needs to be replayed
to two different file systems --- especially if one of the block
device is temporarily unavailable.

So that's why this is there, and in fact it's intentional that it's
done this way.

Cheers,

						- Ted

Powered by blists - more mailing lists