linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 01/13] ext4: correct offset of gdb backup in non meta_bg group to update

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]

Date:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 23:03:11 -0400
From:   "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To:     Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] ext4: correct offset of gdb backup in non meta_bg
 group to update_backups

On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 08:00:32PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> Commit 0aeaa2559d6d5 ("ext4: fix corruption when online resizing a 1K
> bigalloc fs") found that primary superblock's offset in its group is not
> equal to offset of backup superblock in its group when block size is 1K
> and bigalloc is enabled. As group descriptor blocks are right after
> superblock, we can't pass block number of gdb to update_backups for
> the same reason.
> The root casue of the issue above is that leading 1K padding block is
> count as data block offset for primary block while backup block has
> no padding block offset in its group.
> Remove padding data block count to fix the issue for gdb backups.
> 
> For meta_bg case, update_backups treat blk_off as block number, do no
> conversion in this case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>

Reviewed-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>