On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 01:19:28PM +0100, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > The conversion of blknr from a signed 32-bit to an unsigned 64-type resulted > in the check for error to never return true. Fix this. > > Affected configuration would behave incorrectly when served with invalid > blocks. Instead of aborting and having the filesystem bubble up an error > code, it would return invalid data. As there is no ext4 write support, > this wouldn't lead to ext4 data corruption however. > > Reported-by: Bastian Krause <bst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/ext4/ext4fs.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c b/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c > index 54349aad3f3f..344d423fd9c4 100644 > --- a/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4fs.c > @@ -74,11 +74,11 @@ loff_t ext4fs_read_file(struct ext2fs_node *node, loff_t pos, > loff_t blockend = blocksize; > loff_t skipfirst = 0; > > - blknr = read_allocated_block(node, i); > - if (blknr < 0) > - return blknr; > + ret = read_allocated_block(node, i); > + if (ret < 0) > + return ret; ret is a 32bit type. What about drives > 2T? Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
