linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 3/4] ext4: Check journal inode extents more carefully

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:59:29 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Wolfgang Frisch <wolfgang.frisch@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ext4: Check journal inode extents more carefully

On Tue 21-07-20 12:38:55, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > @@ -270,19 +272,19 @@ int ext4_setup_system_zone(struct super_block *sb)
> >  		    ((i < 5) || ((i % flex_size) == 0)))
> >  			add_system_zone(system_blks,
> >  					ext4_group_first_block_no(sb, i),
> > -					ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, i) + 1);
> > +					ext4_bg_num_gdb(sb, i) + 1, 0);
> 
> Is there a good reason we don't check the return value, it can still
> fail right ?

Yes, it can. I'll add a patch to the series that fixes this.

> Other than that the patch looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>

Thanks for review!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR