Hi, Andrew
This situation only happens we format ext3/4 with inode size more than
128 and we have put xattr entries both in ibody and block.
The consequences about this bug is we will lost the xattr block which
pointed by i_file_acl with all xattr entires in it. We will alloc a new
xattr block and put that large value entry in it. The old xattr block
will become orphan block.
Best regards,
tiger
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2008 11:24:40 +0800
Tiger Yang <tiger.yang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I met a bug when I try to replace a xattr entry in ibody with a big size
value. But in ibody there has no space for the new value. So it should
set new xattr entry in block and remove the old xattr entry in ibody.
Best regards,
tiger
[xattr.patch text/x-patch (1.3KB)]
This fix the uninitialized bs when we try to replace a xattr entry in ibody with the new value which require more than free space.
Signed-off-by: Tiger Yang <tiger.yang@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/fs/ext3/xattr.c b/fs/ext3/xattr.c
index a6ea4d6..e1af9bd 100644
--- a/fs/ext3/xattr.c
+++ b/fs/ext3/xattr.c
@@ -1000,6 +1000,11 @@ ext3_xattr_set_handle(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, int name_index,
i.value = NULL;
error = ext3_xattr_block_set(handle, inode, &i, &bs);
} else if (error == -ENOSPC) {
+ if (EXT3_I(inode)->i_file_acl && !bs.s.base) {
+ error = ext3_xattr_block_find(inode, &i, &bs);
+ if (error)
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
error = ext3_xattr_block_set(handle, inode, &i, &bs);
if (error)
goto cleanup;
That sounds fairly bad.
What are the consequences of this bug, when someone hits it?
It appears that we should backport this fix into 2.6.25.x (and perhaps
earlier). What do you think?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
