From: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
To: Bill O'Donnell <billodo@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] libxfs: add more bounds checking to sb sanity checks
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 11:17:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180717091741.i5qztlxpmauh7bqx@odin.usersys.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180716192655.27792-1-billodo@redhat.com>
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 02:26:55PM -0500, Bill O'Donnell wrote:
> Current sb verifier doesn't check bounds on sb_fdblocks and sb_ifree.
> Add sanity checks for these parameters.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bill O'Donnell <billodo@redhat.com>
> ---
> v2: make extra sanity checks exclusive to writes (allow read)
It looks mostly ok for me, I'm still wondering if it wouldn't be better to avoid
adding a write_flag argument for xfs_sb_verify, but I think avoiding it would
require some refactoring of the sb verify code, once we convert from BE to CPU
in xfs_sb_verify, and I'm not sure if it is worth.
So,
Reviewed-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
>
> fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> index 350119eeaecb..6a98ec68e8ad 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> @@ -104,7 +104,8 @@ xfs_mount_validate_sb(
> xfs_mount_t *mp,
> xfs_sb_t *sbp,
> bool check_inprogress,
> - bool check_version)
> + bool check_version,
> + bool write_flag)
> {
> uint32_t agcount = 0;
> uint32_t rem;
> @@ -266,6 +267,15 @@ xfs_mount_validate_sb(
> return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> }
>
> + /* Additional sb sanity checks for writes */
> + if (write_flag) {
> + if (sbp->sb_fdblocks > sbp->sb_dblocks ||
> + sbp->sb_ifree > sbp->sb_icount) {
> + xfs_notice(mp, "SB sanity check failed");
> + return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> + }
> + }
> +
> if (sbp->sb_unit) {
> if (!xfs_sb_version_hasdalign(sbp) ||
> sbp->sb_unit > sbp->sb_width ||
> @@ -599,7 +609,9 @@ xfs_sb_to_disk(
> static int
> xfs_sb_verify(
> struct xfs_buf *bp,
> - bool check_version)
> + bool check_version,
> + bool write_flag)
> +
> {
> struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> struct xfs_sb sb;
> @@ -616,7 +628,7 @@ xfs_sb_verify(
> */
> return xfs_mount_validate_sb(mp, &sb,
> bp->b_maps[0].bm_bn == XFS_SB_DADDR,
> - check_version);
> + check_version, write_flag);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -657,7 +669,7 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> }
> }
> }
> - error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, true);
> + error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, true, false);
>
> out_error:
> if (error == -EFSCORRUPTED || error == -EFSBADCRC)
> @@ -695,7 +707,7 @@ xfs_sb_write_verify(
> struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = bp->b_log_item;
> int error;
>
> - error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, false);
> + error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, false, true);
> if (error) {
> xfs_verifier_error(bp, error, __this_address);
> return;
> --
> 2.17.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Carlos
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-17 9:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-13 13:10 [PATCH] libxfs: add more bounds checking to sb sanity checks Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-13 16:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-13 20:06 ` Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-13 23:43 ` Dave Chinner
2018-07-17 17:13 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-16 19:26 ` [PATCH v2] " Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-17 9:17 ` Carlos Maiolino [this message]
2018-07-17 17:06 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-17 17:17 ` Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-17 19:12 ` Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-17 20:33 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-17 23:26 ` Dave Chinner
2018-07-18 20:07 ` Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-25 21:33 ` [PATCH v3] " Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-25 21:47 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-25 21:58 ` Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-25 22:48 ` Eric Sandeen
2018-07-25 22:55 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-26 16:40 ` [PATCH v4] " Bill O'Donnell
2018-07-26 17:07 ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-26 17:19 ` Bill O'Donnell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180717091741.i5qztlxpmauh7bqx@odin.usersys.redhat.com \
--to=cmaiolino@redhat.com \
--cc=billodo@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.