Liu Bo wrote on 2016/05/02 11:15 -0700:
This adds valid checks for super_total_bytes, super_bytes_used and
super_stripesize.
Reported-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nos...@oracle.com>
Reported-by: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasno...@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li....@oracle.com>
---
fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
index 4e47849..988d03f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -4120,6 +4120,20 @@ static int btrfs_check_super_valid(struct btrfs_fs_info
*fs_info,
* Hint to catch really bogus numbers, bitflips or so, more exact
checks are
* done later
*/
+ if (btrfs_super_total_bytes(sb) == 0) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "BTRFS: total bytes is zero\n");
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ }
Would it be better if using "6 * nodesize"?
I'd like to use a precious low limit on total bytes, but we don't have
such value, so 6 nodesize would be good.
Thanks,
Qu
+ if (btrfs_super_bytes_used(sb) < 6 * btrfs_super_nodesize(sb)) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "BTRFS: bytes_used is too small %llu\n",
+ btrfs_super_bytes_used(sb));
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (btrfs_super_stripesize(sb) != 4096) {
+ printk(KERN_ERR "BTRFS: invalid stripesize %u\n",
+ btrfs_super_stripesize(sb));
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ }
if (btrfs_super_num_devices(sb) > (1UL << 31))
printk(KERN_WARNING "BTRFS: suspicious number of devices:
%llu\n",
btrfs_super_num_devices(sb));
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
