linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: validate ea_ino and size in check

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250924012142.1096152-1-kartikey406@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 06:51:42 +0530
From: Deepanshu Kartikey <kartikey406@...il.com>
To: adilger.kernel@...ger.ca
Cc: tytso@....edu,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: validate ea_ino and size in check_xattrs

Thank you for the feedback on the e2fsck coordination.

You raise a valid point about the complete repair workflow. I'm happy to work on a corresponding e2fsck patch if that would be helpful, though I'd appreciate guidance on the preferred approach:

1. Should I proceed with the kernel patch first and then work on e2fsck, or would you prefer coordinated patches?

2. For the e2fsck side, would the appropriate fix be to:
   - Clear e_value_inum when e_value_size is zero, or
   - Remove the entire corrupted xattr entry?

I'm new to e2fsprogs development but willing to learn the codebase if you think it's valuable to have matching fixes. Alternatively, if there are others typically handling the e2fsck side of ext4 corruption fixes, I'm happy to focus on the kernel patch and coordinate with them.

Thanks for considering the broader user experience - I hadn't fully thought through the repair workflow.

Deepanshu Kartikey