linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix not to allocate max

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]

Date:	Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:28:45 +0900
From:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To:	jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix not to allocate max_nid

2013/3/18, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>:
> 2013-03-18 (월), 18:29 +0900, Namjae Jeon:
>> 2013/3/18, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>:
>> > The build_free_nid should not add free nids over nm_i->max_nid.
>> > But, there was a hole that invalid free nid was added by the following
>> > scenario.
>> >
>> > Let's suppose nm_i->max_nid = 150 and the last NAT page has 100 ~ 200
>> > nids.
>> >
>> > build_free_nids
>> >   - get_current_nat_page loads the last NAT page
>> >   - scan_nat_page can add 100 ~ 200 nids
>> >     -> Bug here!
>> > So, when scanning an NAT page, we should check each candidate whether it
>> > is
>> > over max_nid or not.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
>> > ---
>> >  fs/f2fs/node.c | 2 ++
>> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> > index c60919f..3fb6dfe 100644
>> > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> > @@ -1270,6 +1270,8 @@ static int scan_nat_page(struct f2fs_nm_info
>> > *nm_i,
>> >  	i = start_nid % NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK;
>> >
>> >  	for (; i < NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK; i++, start_nid++) {
>> > +		if (start_nid >= nm_i->max_nid)
>> > +			return fcnt;
>> Hi Jaegeuk.
>> How about use "break;" instread of "return fcnt" ?
>> I think that break is better because there is no extra condition before
>> return.
>
> Ok, thanks. :)
Okay, you can add
Reviewed-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
Thanks.

>
>>
>> Thanks.
>> >  		blk_addr  = le32_to_cpu(nat_blk->entries[i].block_addr);
>> >  		BUG_ON(blk_addr == NEW_ADDR);
>> >  		if (blk_addr == NULL_ADDR)
>> > --
>> > 1.8.1.3.566.gaa39828
>> >
>> > --
>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel"
>> > in
>> > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> >
>> --
>> 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/
>
> --
> Jaegeuk Kim
> Samsung
>
--
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/