From: Bill O'Donnell <billodo@redhat.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] libxfs: add more bounds checking to sb sanity checks
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:58:10 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180725215810.GA17303@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180725214747.GB4218@magnolia>
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:47:47PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 04:33:36PM -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>
> > ---
> > v3: eliminate need for additional write_flag, doing those
> > unique checks in xfs_sb_write_verify()
> > v2: make extra sanity checks exclusive to writes
> >
> >
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > index b3ad15956366..f583fb8a10e1 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > @@ -599,22 +599,16 @@ xfs_sb_to_disk(
> > static int
> > xfs_sb_verify(
> > struct xfs_buf *bp,
> > + struct xfs_sb *sb,
> > bool check_version)
> > {
> > struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> > - struct xfs_sb sb;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * Use call variant which doesn't convert quota flags from disk
> > - * format, because xfs_mount_validate_sb checks the on-disk flags.
> > - */
> > - __xfs_sb_from_disk(&sb, XFS_BUF_TO_SBP(bp), false);
> >
> > /*
> > * Only check the in progress field for the primary superblock as
> > * mkfs.xfs doesn't clear it from secondary superblocks.
> > */
> > - return xfs_mount_validate_sb(mp, &sb,
> > + return xfs_mount_validate_sb(mp, sb,
> > bp->b_maps[0].bm_bn == XFS_SB_DADDR,
> > check_version);
> > }
> > @@ -637,6 +631,7 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> > {
> > struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> > struct xfs_dsb *dsb = XFS_BUF_TO_SBP(bp);
> > + struct xfs_sb sb;
> > int error;
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -657,7 +652,13 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > - error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, true);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Use call variant which doesn't convert quota flags from disk
> > + * format, because xfs_mount_validate_sb checks the on-disk flags.
> > + */
> > + __xfs_sb_from_disk(&sb, XFS_BUF_TO_SBP(bp), false);
> > + error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, &sb, true);
> >
> > out_error:
> > if (error == -EFSCORRUPTED || error == -EFSBADCRC)
> > @@ -693,9 +694,26 @@ xfs_sb_write_verify(
> > {
> > struct xfs_mount *mp = bp->b_target->bt_mount;
> > struct xfs_buf_log_item *bip = bp->b_log_item;
> > + struct xfs_sb sb;
> > int error;
> >
> > - error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, false);
> > + /*
> > + * Use call variant which doesn't convert quota flags from disk
> > + * format, because xfs_mount_validate_sb checks the on-disk flags.
> > + */
> > + __xfs_sb_from_disk(&sb, XFS_BUF_TO_SBP(bp), false);
> > +
> > + error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, &sb, false);
> > +
> > + /* Additional sb sanity checks for writes */
> > + if (!error) {
> > + if (sb.sb_fdblocks > sb.sb_dblocks ||
> > + sb.sb_ifree > sb.sb_icount) {
> > + xfs_notice(mp, "SB sanity check failed");
> > + error = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> On the off chance that some day we add more write-time checks, could you
> please structure this the usual way?
ah, good idea... will do!
Thanks-
Bill
>
> error = xfs_sb_verify(bp, &sb, false);
> if (error)
> goto err;
>
> if (sb.sb_fdblocks > sb.sb_dblocks || sb.sb_ifree > sb.sb_icount) {
> xfs_notice(mp, "SB summary counter sanity check failed");
> error = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> goto err;
> }
>
> err:
> if (error) {
> xfs_verifier_error(bp, error, __this_address);
> return;
> }
> }
>
> Other than that, this looks ok to me.
>
> --D
>
> > +
> > 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-25 23:11 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
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 [this message]
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=20180725215810.GA17303@redhat.com \
--to=billodo@redhat.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.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.