linux-ext4 - Re: 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] jbd2: avoid transaction reuse after reformatting

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201003042426.GD23474@mit.edu>
Date:   Sat, 3 Oct 2020 00:24:26 -0400
From:   "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:     常凤楠 <changfengnan@...vision.com>,
        changfengnan <changfengnan@...com>,
        "adilger@...ger.ca" <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        "darrick.wong@...cle.com" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        "jack@...e.com" <jack@...e.com>,
        "linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH] jbd2: avoid transaction reuse after reformatting

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 02:24:35PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 23-09-20 06:29:12, 常凤楠 wrote:
> > The attachment is new patch.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > I have fix the logic in JBD2_REVOKE_BLOCK and JBD2_COMMIT_BLOCK case.
> > If the revoke block is the first block after valid transaction, I set the
> > flag like descriptor block ,and check it in commit block.  If the commit
> > block is the first block after valid transaction, I use ri_commit_block
> > to judge whether this commit block is next to another commit block, if so
> > it is illegal. I did't use time to judge commit block, because of the
> > possibility of time calibration, I think use ri_commit_block is more
> > reliable.
> 
> If the time is unreliable, your logic with ri_commit_block will detect only
> a small minority of the cases. The majority of cases will fail with
> checksum error. So I still don't think the ri_commit_block logic is really
> worth the additional code. Other than that the current version looks OK to
> me. So please do next submission with full changelog, Signed-off-by line,
> and the coding style issues fixed (you can use scripts/checkpatch.pl for
> patch verification). Thanks!

Hi changfengnan,

Have you had a chance to send a revised patch with the changes
requested by Jan?

Thanks,

					- Ted