Re: [PATCH V3] limit minixfs printks on corrupted dir i_size, CVE-2006-6058

[Bodo Eggert <7eggert@gmx.de>]

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Bodo Eggert wrote:

> > Warning: I'm only looking at the patch.
> >
> > You are supposed to print an error message for a user, not to write in a
> > chat window to a 1337 script kiddie. OK, you just matched the current style,
> > and your patch is IMHO OK for a quick security fix, but:
> >
> > - Security fixes should be CCed to the security mailing list, shouldn't they?
> >   (It might be security@ or stable@, I'll remember tomorrow, but then I'd
> >    forget to comment)
> > - Imagine you have three mounts containing a minix fs, how can you tell which
> >   one is the the defective one?
> > - The message says "minix_bmap", while the patch suggests it's in
> >   block_to_path. Therefore I asume "minix_bmap" to have only random
> >   informational value.
> > - Does block < 0 or block > $size make a difference?
> > - the printk lacks the loglevel.
> > - Asuming minix supports error handling, shouldn't it do something?
> >
> > I'd suggest a message saying something like "minix: Bad block address on
> > device 08:15, needs fsck".
> >   
> Ok, do you like this slightly better?  It states the subsystem, the 
> function with the error, the block nr. in the case of a too-large block,
> and the block device on which the error occurred.

- how long is BDEVNAME_SIZE? Will it fit on the stack?
- Does it include thespace for \0?

I asume you copied other users, and the other users will do it right (or 
at least not terribly wrong:), but I can't dig the code right now.

>  Honestly minix.fsck
> doesn't handle the situation well either, so at this point I hesitate
> to recommend it in the print.  :)

*g*
-- 
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
79. What's this "any" key I'm supposed to press?