linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 0/5] ext4/overlayfs: fiemap related fixes

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: <20200427064231.GA19581@infradead.org>
Date:   Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:42:31 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Murphy Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        overlayfs <linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] ext4/overlayfs: fiemap related fixes

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 10:32:44AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 25, 2020, at 02:43, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:11:59PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >> FWIW, I agree with you.
> >> And seems like Jan does as well, since he ACKed all your patches.
> >> Current patches would be easier to backport to stable kernels.
> > 
> > Honestly, the proper fix is pretty much trivial.  I wrote it up this
> > morning over coffee:
> > 
> >    http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/misc.git/shortlog/refs/heads/fiemap-fix
> > 
> > Still needs more testing, though.
> 
> The "maxbytes" value should be passed in from the caller, since this
> may be different per inode (for ext4 at least).

We should handle it, but not burden everyone else who has saner limits.