Re: [stable] [patch 16/23] ext3: avoid triggering ext3_error on bad NFS file handle
From: Greg KH
Date: Thu Aug 10 2006 - 01:36:58 EST
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:35:34AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 09:45:52AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>Greg KH wrote:
> >>>-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> >>>From: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
> >>>The inode number out of an NFS file handle gets passed eventually to
> >>>ext3_get_inode_block() without any checking. If ext3_get_inode_block()
> >>>allows it to trigger an error, then bad filehandles can have unpleasant
> >>>effect - ext3_error() will usually cause a forced read-only remount, or a
> >>>panic if `errors=panic' was used.
> >>>So remove the call to ext3_error there and put a matching check in
> >>>ext3/namei.c where inode numbers are read off storage.
> >>This patch and the ext2 patch (23/23) are accomplishing the same thing in
> >>2 different ways, I think, and introducing unnecessary differences
> >>between ext2 and ext3. I'd personally prefer to see both ext2 and ext3
> >>handled with the get_dentry op addition, and I'd be happy to quickly whip
> >>up the ext3 patch to do this if there's agreement on this path.
> >I completly agree with Eric here. Also pushing out only the fix for one
> >(and today probably the lesser used) filesystems to -stable seems wrong.
> so how's this? (compile tested)
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> (tho blatantly ripped off from Neil Brown's ext2 patch)
Thanks, I've queued this up.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/