On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 01:19:15PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The current test in xfs_sb_read_verify() will attempt to validate
> an sb checksum if sb_crc is non-zero, even if the superblock is not
> marked as being version 5.
>
> This runs the risk of picking up random garbage in sb_crc for non-V5
> superblocks; such garbage is known to exist in the wild due to prior bugs.
> This will cause verification to fail for otherwise non-fatal reasons.
>
> I'm not sure of the point of trying to validate a non-V5 superblock;
> is there one? Shouldn't this || be an &&? (Can sb_crc validly be
> 0 for a V5 SB?)
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
This looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> index 2b0ba35..5ca299b 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_mount.c
> @@ -764,7 +764,7 @@ xfs_sb_read_verify(
> */
> if (dsb->sb_magicnum == cpu_to_be32(XFS_SB_MAGIC) &&
> (((be16_to_cpu(dsb->sb_versionnum) & XFS_SB_VERSION_NUMBITS) ==
> - XFS_SB_VERSION_5) ||
> + XFS_SB_VERSION_5) &&
> dsb->sb_crc != 0)) {
>
> if (!xfs_verify_cksum(bp->b_addr, be16_to_cpu(dsb->sb_sectsize),
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
