linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] fat (exportfs): rebuild directory-inode if fat

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:	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:19:29 +0900
From:	OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
To:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
	Ravishankar N <ravi.n1@...sung.com>,
	Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/8] fat (exportfs): rebuild directory-inode if fat_dget() fails

Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com> writes:

>>> Hm, start with copy of fat_search_long() and refactoring it. With it, we
>>> will be able to avoid the fixed bugs.
>>>
>>> After that, we might be able to merge those somehow. Well, I'm not
>>> pretty sure without doing it actually though.
> Hi OGAWA.
>
> When we checked to merge it with fat_search_long, we really did not
> find any possibility of code reusing for fat_traverse_cluster.
> It will not be proper. In case of fat_search_long()-> it is performing
> a name based lookup in a particular directory.
> While for reconnection with parent from NFS, we do not have the name
> of the parent directory. We are relying on ‘i_pos’ on disk position of
> directory entry.
> So, on first request for lookup for “..” (i.e if we call
> fat_search_long(child_dir->d_inode, MSDOS_DOTDOT,2,slot_info) it will
> return the directory entry for “..” itself.  From this entry we can
> read the “log start” which is the starting cluster of the parent
> directory, but instead we need the “directory entry” where this is
> stored.
> So, from this level we need to go further one level up and read the
> parent ->parent-> cluster. After reading that cluster, we need to do a
> lookup of the “required ipos” in this directory block.
> i.e., if the path is A/B/C and we call the get_parent() from ‘C’. We
> need to read the directory block contents of ‘A’ and from those
> ‘directory entries' compare the log_start with the log_start value of
> B, which was obtained by doing a lookup “..” in C.
> So, Instead of it, we suggest we fix the “infinite-loop” condition in
> fat_traverse_logic and retain the code.
> of course, we will test it with corrupted FATfs.
> Please share your thoughts on this.

Yes, we can't use fat_search_long() as is, of course. However, we can
share the basic algorithm and code.

The both are doing,

1) traverse the blocks chained by ->i_start.
2) get the record (dirent) from blocks.
3) check the detail of record

The difference is only (3), right? I know, the code has many differences
though. The actual logic are almost same.

And see, e.g., fat_get_cluster() is checking several unexpected
state. We have to care about corrupting data. It is not only
"infinite-loop" case.  And why I'm saying it is better to share code.

Thanks.
-- 
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
--
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/