linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] FS: nilfs2: clamps ns_r_segments

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: <EC48BE45-EA3E-400B-A90D-FF05CE3426D8@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:59:25 -0500
From:	Xi Wang <xi.wang@...il.com>
To:	Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp>
Cc:	haogangchen@...il.com, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] FS: nilfs2: clamps ns_r_segments_percentage to [1, 99]

On Feb 22, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> But this seems not to cause security issues; it just makes some disk
> usage calculations meaningless and causes malfunction for such
> out-of-range values.  Right?

Seems true to me.

There may be another issue a few lines above: ns_blocks_per_segment
doesn't seem to have an upper bound (though it has a lower bound
NILFS_SEG_MIN_BLOCKS).  ns_blocks_per_segment is used in several
multiplications, such as in nilfs_ioctl_clean_segments:

if (argv[n].v_nmembs > nsegs * nilfs->ns_blocks_per_segment
        goto out_free;

Will this cause any problem?  Or is there any reasonable upper bound
for ns_blocks_per_segment?

- xi

--
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/