On 7/30/18 12:30 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> From: Bill O'Donnell <billodo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> [darrick: port to refactored sb validation predicates]
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
comment nitpicks below, but otherwise
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> 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.
/*
* These summary counters get re-initialized after they are read
* during mount, so this is a write-only check.
*/
? 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
