Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 23 Apr 2018 09:13:50 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Wen Xu <wen.xu@gatech.edu>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.9 37/95] ext4: add validity checks for bitmap block
 numbers
Message-ID: <20180423071350.GB28186@kroah.com>
References: <20180422135210.432103639@linuxfoundation.org>
 <20180422135211.941652389@linuxfoundation.org>
 <30c688b5783a5779811ce68893b7001390b9e200.camel@decadent.org.uk>
 <20180423060352.GA8194@thunk.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180423060352.GA8194@thunk.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 02:03:52AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:54:23PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > >  	offset = blk - group_first_block;
> > > -	if (!ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data))
> > > +	if (offset < 0 || EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset) >= sb->s_blocksize ||
> > > +	    !ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data))
> > 
> > Isn't sb->s_blocksize a count of bytes?  If so, doesn't that mean that
> > we should be comparing with sb->s_blocksize * 8?
> 
> Yes, nice catch, Ben!  Can we temporarily drop this patch from the
> stable queue until I can get a fix in?
> 
> In practice this shouldn't be a problem because of the default ext4
> layout with flex_bg.  But we should definitely get this fixed before
> we let this flow into the stable kernel.

Now dropped from all queues.  When you submit the fix, can you also tag
it for stable so I know to pick this one back up?

thanks,

greg k-h