[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH, V3 (sort of)] xfs: zero proper structure size for geometry c

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, V3 (sort of)] xfs: zero proper structure size for geometry calls
From: Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 15:40:50 -0600
Cc: aelder@xxxxxxx, Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Eugene Teo <eugeneteo@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4D6D3891.5060908@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4D6C28A5.60905@xxxxxxxx> <4D6C4DEE.6020902@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4D6C9958.2040607@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1298984132.32568.3.camel@dan> <4D6D128C.6010503@xxxxxxxx> <4D6D157B.9070800@xxxxxxxxxxx> <1299001800.2381.10.camel@doink> <4D6D3891.5060908@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101227 Icedove/3.0.11

On 03/01/2011 12:18 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 3/1/11 11:50 AM, Alex Elder wrote:
I'm sorry to muddy the waters with this.  But I think the
proposed patch fixes the wrong problem.  Having xfs_fs_geometry()
zero its argument is fine--it defines an interface and honors
it.  The real problem lies in xfs_ioc_fsgeometry_v1(), which
violates that interface by passing the address of an object
that's not the right size.  So below is an alternative to
Eric's solution which just fixes this one caller instead.

Eric has already told me this makes more sense.  It would
be nice if Jeffrey would re-test this fix, and Dan would
sign off on it as well.
Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen<sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>

I can't tell you if the security concerns are met but I can tell you that xfs_fsr is working as one would expect without a Kernel panic.

Tested-by: Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@xxxxxxxx>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>