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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).