On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 07:59 +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > On 2017年10月30日 01:15, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > You recently made a number of fixes to validation and use of name > > lengths in btrfs: > > > > 286b92f43c0d btrfs: tree-log.c: Wrong printk information about namelen > > 19c6dcbfa746 btrfs: Introduce btrfs_is_name_len_valid to avoid reading beyond boundary > > e79a33270d05 btrfs: Check name_len with boundary in verify dir_item > > 26a836cec2ea btrfs: Check name_len on add_inode_ref call path > > 8ee8c2d62d5f btrfs: Verify dir_item in replay_xattr_deletes > > 3c1d41844896 btrfs: Check name_len in btrfs_check_ref_name_override > > 59b0a7f2c7c1 btrfs: Check name_len before read in iterate_dir_item > > 488d7c456653 btrfs: Check name_len before reading btrfs_get_name > > 64c7b01446f4 btrfs: Check name_len before in btrfs_del_root_ref > > fbc326159a01 btrfs: Verify dir_item in iterate_object_props > > > > The bugs these are fixing probably should also be fixed on the affected > > stable branches. Do you agree? Can you provide any guidance about how > > far back these fixes would be needed? > > These fixes will soon be replace by centralized tree-checker facilities. Is that likely to be a small enough change to be reasonably backport- able? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings friends: People who know you well, but like you anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part