All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Bill O'Donnell <billodo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] libxfs: add more bounds checking to sb sanity checks
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 16:38:35 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180730233835.GR30972@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <82b9a6d9-c5b9-112d-98eb-c9e7153e67da@sandeen.net>

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 06:16:40PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 7/30/18 12:30 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Bill O'Donnell <billodo@redhat.com>
> > 
> > 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>
> > [darrick: port to refactored sb validation predicates]
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> 
> comment nitpicks below, but otherwise
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
> 
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c |   12 ++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > index 516bef7b0f50..64bc471d57e6 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > @@ -153,6 +153,18 @@ xfs_validate_sb_write(
> >  	struct xfs_mount	*mp,
> >  	struct xfs_sb		*sbp)
> >  {
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Carry out additional sb sanity checks exclusively for writes.
> 
> We're in xfs_validate_sb_write so that's obvious, can drop this line.
> 
> > +	 * We don't do these checks for reads, since faulty parameters could
> > +	 * be fixed in the log, and we shouldn't prohibit mounting for those
> > +	 * cases.
> > +	 */
> 
> Hm, it's not really a log reaplay issue, right?  These summary counters
> get reinitialized at mount, so failing to mount before we overwrite them
> anyway makes no sense.

Well, we don't reinitialize them if ( (!lazysbcount) or (clean log) )
and (non-crazy values)...

> /*
>  * These summary counters get re-initialized after they are read
>  * during mount, so this is a write-only check.

They're not always re-initialized -- only if we had a dirty lazysbcont
fs or the values were crazy.

/*
 * Carry out additional sb summary counter sanity checks when we write
 * the superblock.  We skip this in the read validator because there
 * could be newer superblocks in the log and if the values are garbage
 * even after replay we'll recalculate them at the end of log mount.
 */

--D

>  */
> 
> ?  And yeah, modulo lazycount... but whatevs.
> 
> -Eric
> 
> > +	if (sbp->sb_fdblocks > sbp->sb_dblocks ||
> > +	    sbp->sb_ifree > sbp->sb_icount) {
> > +		xfs_warn(mp, "SB summary counter sanity check failed");
> > +		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	if (!xfs_sb_version_hascrc(sbp))
> >  		return 0;
> --
> 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

  reply	other threads:[~2018-07-31  1:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-30  5:30 [PATCH 0/3] xfs-4.19: superblock verifier cleanups Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-30  5:30 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: refactor superblock verifiers Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-30 23:06   ` Eric Sandeen
2018-07-30 23:29     ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-30  5:30 ` [PATCH 2/3] libxfs: add more bounds checking to sb sanity checks Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-30 23:16   ` Eric Sandeen
2018-07-30 23:38     ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2018-07-30 23:40       ` Eric Sandeen
2018-07-30  5:30 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: verify icount in superblock write Darrick J. Wong
2018-07-30 23:26   ` Eric Sandeen
2018-07-30 23:41     ` Darrick J. Wong

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=20180730233835.GR30972@magnolia \
    --to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=billodo@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    /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.