public inbox for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Cc: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] btrfs: extent_io: do extra check for extent buffer read write functions
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 11:50:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200820095024.GX2026@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66f629fa-e636-6ab5-eda8-5299d996b2f4@suse.com>

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 07:14:13AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> +static inline int check_eb_range(const struct extent_buffer *eb,
> >> +				 unsigned long start, unsigned long len)
> >> +{
> >> +	/* start, start + len should not go beyond eb->len nor overflow */
> >> +	if (unlikely(start > eb->len || start + len > eb->len ||
> >> +		     len > eb->len)) {
> > 
> > Can the number of condition be reduced? If 'start + len' overflows, then
> > we don't need to check 'start > eb->len', and for the case where
> > start = 1024 and len = -1024 the 'len > eb-len' would be enough.
> 
> I'm afraid not.
> Although 'start > eb->len || len > eb->len' is enough to detect overflow
> case, it no longer detects cases like 'start = 2k, len = 3k' while
> eb->len == 4K case.
> 
> So we still need all 3 checks.

I was suggesting 'start + len > eb->len', not 'start > eb-len'.

"start > eb->len" is implied by "start + len > eb->len".

  reply	other threads:[~2020-08-20  9:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-19  6:35 [PATCH v5 0/4] btrfs: Enhanced runtime defence against fuzzed images Qu Wenruo
2020-08-19  6:35 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] btrfs: extent_io: do extra check for extent buffer read write functions Qu Wenruo
2020-08-19 17:11   ` David Sterba
2020-08-19 23:14     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-20  9:50       ` David Sterba [this message]
2020-08-20  9:58         ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-20 14:46           ` David Sterba
2020-08-20 15:18             ` David Sterba
2020-08-20 23:39             ` Qu Wenruo
2020-08-19  6:35 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] btrfs: extent-tree: kill BUG_ON() in __btrfs_free_extent() and do better comment Qu Wenruo
2020-08-19  6:35 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] btrfs: extent-tree: kill the BUG_ON() in insert_inline_extent_backref() Qu Wenruo
2020-08-19  6:35 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] btrfs: ctree: checking key orders before merged tree blocks Qu Wenruo
2020-08-27 14:47 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] btrfs: Enhanced runtime defence against fuzzed images David Sterba

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=20200820095024.GX2026@twin.jikos.cz \
    --to=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wqu@suse.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox