[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7096c0ab-e2ee-4aa9-bb05-0667efa85fd1-pchelkin@ispras.ru>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 00:19:45 +0300
From: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
To: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>
Cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...nel.org>, Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
Venkateswararao Jujjuri <jvrao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>, lvc-project@...uxtesting.org,
syzbot+56fdf7f6291d819b9b19@...kaller.appspotmail.com, syzbot+a83dc51a78f0f4cf20da@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] fs: 9p: avoid warning during xattr allocation
On 24/03/04 10:09PM, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Fedor Pchelkin wrote on Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:13:17PM +0300:
> > An invalid server may reply with an xattr size which still fits into
> > ssize_t but is large enough to cause splat during kzalloc().
>
>
> Ah, sorry for not replying to this earlier.. and I had forgotten about
> it when something similar came up just now.
>
> I've submitted a patch to limit such allocations to 64k:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20240304-xattr_maxsize-v1-1-322357ec6bdf@codewreck.org
>
> Would you agree this makes this patch obsolete?
Yes, thanks! Checking against the VFS limits is more appropriate.
>
> I'll go ahead and add the reported-by/closes you cited in this mail to
> my commit.
Okay.
--
Fedor
Powered by blists - more mailing lists