linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xfs: introduce protection for drop nlink

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:   Sat, 26 Aug 2023 13:08:44 +1000
From:   Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc:     cheng.lin130@....com.cn, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jiang.yong5@....com.cn,
        wang.liang82@....com.cn, liu.dong3@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: introduce protection for drop nlink

On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 10:56:27AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 05:09:20PM +0800, cheng.lin130@....com.cn wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 03:43:52PM +0800, cheng.lin130@....com.cn wrote:
> > >> From: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@....com.cn>
> > >> An dir nlinks overflow which down form 0 to 0xffffffff, cause the
> > >> directory to become unusable until the next xfs_repair run.
> > > Hmmm.  How does this ever happen?
> > > IMO, if it does happen, we need to fix whatever bug that causes it
> > > to happen, not issue a warning and do nothing about the fact we
> > > just hit a corrupt inode state...
> > Yes, I'm very agree with your opinion. But I don't know how it happened,
> > and how to reproduce it.
> 
> Wait, is this the result of a customer problem?  Or static analysis?
> 
> > >> Introduce protection for drop nlink to reduce the impact of this.
> > >> And produce a warning for directory nlink error during remove.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@....com.cn>
> > >> ---
> > >>  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> > >>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > >> index 9e62cc5..536dbe4 100644
> > >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
> > >> @@ -919,6 +919,15 @@ STATIC int xfs_iunlink_remove(struct xfs_trans *tp, struct xfs_perag *pag,
> 
> I'm not sure why your diff program thinks this hunk is from
> xfs_iunlink_remove, seeing as the line numbers of the chunk point to
> xfs_droplink.  Maybe that's what's going on in this part of the thread?

Yes.

I don't expect patches to be mangled like this - I generally
take the hunk prefix to indicate what code is being modified when
reading patches, not expecting that the hunk is modifying code over
a thousand lines prior to the function in the prefix...

So, yeah, something went very wrong with the generation of this
patch...

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com