From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p21Lc64R220054 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 15:38:06 -0600 Received: from mail.mnsu.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 2B5691634A0D for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 13:40:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.mnsu.edu (Mail.MNSU.EDU [134.29.1.12]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ak8NdtzyHI2wHqHb for ; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:40:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D6D67E2.80503@mnsu.edu> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:40:50 -0600 From: Jeffrey Hundstad MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH, V3 (sort of)] xfs: zero proper structure size for geometry calls References: <4D6C28A5.60905@mnsu.edu> <4D6C4DEE.6020902@sandeen.net> <4D6C9958.2040607@sandeen.net> <1298984132.32568.3.camel@dan> <4D6D128C.6010503@mnsu.edu> <4D6D157B.9070800@sandeen.net> <1299001800.2381.10.camel@doink> <4D6D3891.5060908@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4D6D3891.5060908@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Eric Sandeen Cc: Dan Rosenberg , xfs@oss.sgi.com, Eugene Teo , aelder@sgi.com On 03/01/2011 12:18 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 3/1/11 11:50 AM, Alex Elder wrote: > >> I'm sorry to muddy the waters with this. But I think the >> proposed patch fixes the wrong problem. Having xfs_fs_geometry() >> zero its argument is fine--it defines an interface and honors >> it. The real problem lies in xfs_ioc_fsgeometry_v1(), which >> violates that interface by passing the address of an object >> that's not the right size. So below is an alternative to >> Eric's solution which just fixes this one caller instead. >> >> Eric has already told me this makes more sense. It would >> be nice if Jeffrey would re-test this fix, and Dan would >> sign off on it as well. >> > Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen I can't tell you if the security concerns are met but I can tell you that xfs_fsr is working as one would expect without a Kernel panic. Tested-by: Jeffrey Hundstad _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs