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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:43:04 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> To: Tadeusz Struk <tadeusz.struk@...aro.org> Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzbot+7a806094edd5d07ba029@...kaller.appspotmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: check if offset+length is valid in fallocate On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 02:54:39PM -0700, Tadeusz Struk wrote: > @@ -3967,6 +3968,16 @@ int ext4_punch_hole(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length) > offset; > } > > + /* > + * For punch hole the length + offset needs to be at least within > + * one block before last > + */ > + max_length = sbi->s_bitmap_maxbytes - inode->i_sb->s_blocksize; > + if (offset + length >= max_length) { > + ret = -ENOSPC; > + goto out_mutex; > + } I wonder if we would be better off just simply capping length to max_length? If length is set to some large value, such as LONG_MAX, it's pretty clear what the intention should be, which is to simply do the equivalent of truncating the file at offset. Perhaps we should just do that? That being said, we should be consistent with what other file systems do when they are asked to punch a hole starting at offset and extending out to LONG_MAX. Also, if we are going to return an error, I don't think ENOSPC is the correct error to be returning. - Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists