linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 14/31] libext2fs: Fix ext2fs_open2() truncation of the superblock parameter

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 Oct 2013 11:58:59 -0400
From:	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/31] libext2fs: Fix ext2fs_open2() truncation of the
 superblock parameter

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 06:28:12PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Since it's possible for very large filesystems to store backup superblocks at
> very large (> 2^32) block numbers, we need to be able to handle the case of a
> caller directing us to read one of these high-numbered backups.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>

Hmm... This is technically true, but I'm wondering how much we should
care.  In practice, users almost always use the first couple of backup
superblocks.  I could imagine a situation with a RAID array where the
first disk(s) were trashed, so we needed to use a backup superblock
beyond 2**32, but it's a bit unlikely.

If there was some other reason why we needed to add a new ext2fs_open3
variant, it would certainly be a good thing to fix.  But I'm wondering
if it's worth adding a new interface just for this.

Is there perhaps any other extensions to ext2fs_open() that we might
want to make, either now or in the future?

Regards,

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html