linux-xfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 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 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).