linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] quota: Replace all block number checking with helper function

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: <5f5e3d09-7fc6-33e1-3f2e-669baf8e5da1@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:07:36 +0800
From:   Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:     <jack@...e.com>, <tytso@....edu>, <brauner@...nel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] quota: Replace all block number checking with
 helper function

在 2022/9/23 19:48, Jan Kara 写道:
> On Thu 22-09-22 21:04:00, Zhihao Cheng wrote:
>> Cleanup all block checking places, replace them with helper function
>> do_check_range().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/quota/quota_tree.c | 28 ++++++++++++----------------
>>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> Thanks for the fix! One comment below:
> 
>> diff --git a/fs/quota/quota_tree.c b/fs/quota/quota_tree.c
>> index f89186b6db1d..47711e739ddb 100644
>> --- a/fs/quota/quota_tree.c
>> +++ b/fs/quota/quota_tree.c
>> @@ -71,11 +71,12 @@ static ssize_t write_blk(struct qtree_mem_dqinfo *info, uint blk, char *buf)
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
>> -static inline int do_check_range(struct super_block *sb, uint val, uint max_val)
>> +static inline int do_check_range(struct super_block *sb, uint val,
>> +				 uint min_val, uint max_val)
>>   {
>> -	if (val >= max_val) {
>> -		quota_error(sb, "Getting block too big (%u >= %u)",
>> -			    val, max_val);
>> +	if (val < min_val || val >= max_val) {
>> +		quota_error(sb, "Getting block %u out of range %u-%u",
>> +			    val, min_val, max_val);
>>   		return -EUCLEAN;
>>   	}
> 
> It is strange that do_check_range() checks min_val() with strict inequality
> and max_val with non-strict one. That's off-by-one problem waiting to
> happen when we forget about this detail. Probably make max_val
> non-inclusive as well (the parameter max_val suggests the passed value is
> the biggest valid one anyway).
> 
> 								Honza
> 

I have sent v3 series, see
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220923134555.2623931-1-chengzhihao1@huawei.com/T/