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

[Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@xxxxxxxx>]

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>