Re: CVE-2006-3468: which patch to use?

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> While going through patches for 2.6.16.x, I stumbled over the following 
> regarding the "NFS export of ext2/ext3" security vulnerabilities (the 
> ext3 one is  CVE-2006-3468, I don't whether there's a number for the 
> ext2 one):
> 
> There are three patches available:
> have-ext2-reject-file-handles-with-bad-inode-numbers-early.patch
> have-ext3-reject-file-handles-with-bad-inode-numbers-early.patch
> ext3-avoid-triggering-ext3_error-on-bad-nfs-file-handle.patch
> 
> The first two patches are except for a s/ext2/ext3/ identical.
> 
> The two ext3 patches fix the same issue in slightly different ways.
> 
> It seems there was already some agreement that the first of the two ext3 
> patches should be preferred due to being more the same as the ext2 patch
> (see [1] and followups).
> 
> But the only patch that is applied in 2.6.18-rc4 (and in 2.6.17.9) is 
> the ext3 patch that is _not_ identical to the ext2 one.
> 
> Is it the correct solution to revert this ext3 patch in both 2.6.18-rc 
> and 2.6.17 and to apply the other two patches?
> 
> cu
> Adrian
> 
> BTW: I've attached all three patches.
> 
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/4/192

IMO the first two should be used; i.e. those that add ext[23]_get_dentry().

-Eric