[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180922052544.GB19103@rh>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 15:25:44 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.16 51/63] xfs: catch inode allocation state mismatch
corruption
On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 01:15:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.16.58-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
>
> commit ee457001ed6c6f31ddad69c24c1da8f377d8472d upstream.
>
> We recently came across a V4 filesystem causing memory corruption
> due to a newly allocated inode being setup twice and being added to
> the superblock inode list twice. From code inspection, the only way
> this could happen is if a newly allocated inode was not marked as
> free on disk (i.e. di_mode wasn't zero).
....
> Signed-Off-By: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>
> Tested-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> [bwh: Backported to 3.16:
> - Look up mode in XFS inode, not VFS inode
> - Use positive error codes, and EIO instead of EFSCORRUPTED]
Why EIO?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
dchinner@...hat.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists