linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 1/4] ext4: Handle error of ext4_setup_system

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: <20200727110221.GM23179@quack2.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jul 2020 13:02:21 +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 1/4] ext4: Handle error of ext4_setup_system_zone() on
 remount

On Tue 21-07-20 12:36:28, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 03:18:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > ext4_setup_system_zone() can fail. Handle the failure in ext4_remount().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > ---
> >  fs/ext4/super.c | 5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > index 330957ed1f05..8e055ec57a2c 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> > @@ -5653,7 +5653,10 @@ static int ext4_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data)
> >  		ext4_register_li_request(sb, first_not_zeroed);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	ext4_setup_system_zone(sb);
> > +	err = ext4_setup_system_zone(sb);
> > +	if (err)
> > +		goto restore_opts;
> > +
> 
> Thanks Jan, this looks good. But while you're at it, ext4_remount is
> missing ext4_release_system_zone() and so it we want to enable block_validity
> on remount and it fails after ext4_setup_system_zone() we wont release
> it. This *I think* means that we would end up with block_validity
> enabled without user knowing about it ?

And vice-versa, yes. I'll add a patch that fixes this bug to the series but
it's independent issue. Can I add your reviewed-by for this patch?

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