linux-kernel - Re: [patch 16/23] ext3: avoid triggering ext3

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: <20060804145254.GA20640@infradead.org>
Date:	Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:52:54 +0100
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>
Cc:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, torvalds@...l.org,
	Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
	Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@....linux.org.uk>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckw@...ntumlinux.com>,
	Chris Wedgwood <reviews@...cw.f00f.org>, akpm@...l.org,
	alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, jack@...e.cz, neilb@...e.de,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	"Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 16/23] ext3: avoid triggering ext3_error on bad NFS file handle

On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:45:52AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> >
> >------------------
> >From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
> >
> >The inode number out of an NFS file handle gets passed eventually to
> >ext3_get_inode_block() without any checking.  If ext3_get_inode_block()
> >allows it to trigger an error, then bad filehandles can have unpleasant
> >effect - ext3_error() will usually cause a forced read-only remount, or a
> >panic if `errors=panic' was used.
> >
> >So remove the call to ext3_error there and put a matching check in
> >ext3/namei.c where inode numbers are read off storage.
> 
> This patch and the ext2 patch (23/23) are accomplishing the same thing in 2 
> different ways, I think, and introducing unnecessary differences between 
> ext2 and ext3.  I'd personally prefer to see both ext2 and ext3 handled 
> with the get_dentry op addition, and I'd be happy to quickly whip up the 
> ext3 patch to do this if there's agreement on this path.

I completly agree with Eric here.  Also pushing out only the fix for one
(and today probably the lesser used) filesystems to -stable seems wrong.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/