Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Fix\s+possible\s+memory\s+corruption\s+in\s+xfs

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Fix\s+possible\s+memory\s+corruption\s+in\s+xfs_readlink\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:30:12 -0200; Fixes a possible memory corruption when the link is larger than MAXPATHLEN and XFS_DEBUG is not enabled. This also uses S_IFLNK to check link not only in DEBUG mode. Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <c; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00329.html (7,858 bytes)
2. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:00:30 -0400; This generally good, but you'll need to fix formatting a bit for both the mail body and the patch itself. Please try to fill up ~ 75 characters for each line in the mail body, e.g. Fix a possible mem; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00331.html (9,750 bytes)
3. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 12:24:09 -0500; We could get here via xfs_readlink_by_handle, but that tests S_ISLNK(dentry->d_inode->i_mode) before calling xfs_readlink. I'm guessing that we wouldn't get here through normal paths if the inode in; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00336.html (11,355 bytes)
4. [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:05:28 -0200; Fixes a possible memory corruption when the link is larger than MAXPATHLEN and XFS_DEBUG is not enabled. This also remove the S_ISLNK assert, since the inode mode is checked previously in xfs_readlin; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00337.html (8,537 bytes)
5. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:39:44 -0500; I know this was discussed to death on IRC. But I didn't get a chance to be a part of that committee so I have a suggested change: use %llu format, not %lld. Just to clarify, this is addressing someth; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00338.html (8,958 bytes)
6. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:43:09 +1100; Looks good. One minor thing for consistency, but consider it: Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> xfs_alert() is generally used for such messages - it's not a fatal error (yet).... Cheers; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00339.html (9,599 bytes)
7. [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:18:58 -0200; Fixes a possible memory corruption when the link is larger than MAXPATHLEN and XFS_DEBUG is not enabled. This also remove the S_ISLNK assert, since the inode mode is checked previously in xfs_readlin; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00345.html (8,861 bytes)
8. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:28:56 -0200; Hey, Alex and Dave I did both changes and sent the path again, so, hopefuly its ok now :-) Alex, if is there anything else you need to change, please, feel free to do. I just read your email and sinc; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00346.html (8,874 bytes)
9. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 02:52:40 -0400; Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00352.html (8,445 bytes)
10. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:59:28 -0500; OK, looks good. I'll commit it soon. Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00355.html (9,182 bytes)
11. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:25:18 -0500; Thanks! Discussed-to-death-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>; /archives/xfs/2011-10/msg00356.html (10,509 bytes)
12. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:14:02 +0000; pathlen is a signed int (32-bit) and di_size has signed 64-bit type. So, even if di_size was verified to be non-negative earlier (is it?)... ...pathlen may be negative here and will pass this check.; /archives/xfs/2011-11/msg00002.html (8,310 bytes)
13. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 12:52:19 -0500; I don't konw why, but I *think* the response I thought I sent earlier didn't actually make it out. Just in case, I'm trying to recreate what I had before, below. Sorry if something like this shows up; /archives/xfs/2011-11/msg00012.html (11,845 bytes)
14. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:45:07 -0400; We should validate that the value isn't negative in xfs_iformat_*, although we currently don't do that. It already verified that it fits into the XFS_DFORK_DSIZE, which should take care of fitting in; /archives/xfs/2011-11/msg00014.html (8,268 bytes)
15. Re: [PATCH] Fix possible memory corruption in xfs_readlink (score: 1): Author: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:22:35 -0500; That's true, but there are other places where it gets updated, yet not defensively validated. For example, in xfs_dir2_shrink_inode(), if: fsbno > (INT64_MAX >> mp->m_sb.sb_blocklog) then the (signed; /archives/xfs/2011-11/msg00017.html (9,219 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]