2011-06-14 15:17:16

by Amir G.

Subject: [PATCH] libext2fs: fix the range validation in bitmap_range2 funcs

From: Amir Goldstein <[email protected]>

The condition ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) in bitmap_ragne2
and generic_bmap_range funcs in get_bitmap64.c was wrong and
inconsistent with the condition (start+num-1 > bmap->real_end)
in generic_bitmap_range funcs in get_bitmap.c.

I got the following error from tune2fs on a 16TB fs:
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_unmark_block_bitmap #4294967295
for block bitmap for 16TB.img
tune2fs: Invalid argument while reading bitmaps

Fix to condition to ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL), because
the bit (start+num) is not going to be changed by the funcs.

Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <[email protected]>
---
lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c | 10 +++++-----
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c b/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c
index df095ac..69c399a 100644
--- a/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c
+++ b/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c
@@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_set_generic_bmap_range(ext2fs_generic_bitmap bmap,
return EINVAL;

if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
- if ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
+ if ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
ext2fs_warn_bitmap2(bmap, EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR,
0xffffffff);
return EINVAL;
@@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_get_generic_bmap_range(ext2fs_generic_bitmap bmap,
return EINVAL;

if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
- if ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
+ if ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
ext2fs_warn_bitmap2(bmap,
EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
return EINVAL;
@@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ int ext2fs_test_block_bitmap_range2(ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap,
bmap, block);

if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
- if ((block+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
+ if ((block+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
ext2fs_warn_bitmap2((ext2fs_generic_bitmap) bmap,
EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
return EINVAL;
@@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ void ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap_range2(ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap,
return;

if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
- if ((block+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
+ if ((block+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
ext2fs_warn_bitmap2((ext2fs_generic_bitmap) bmap,
EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
return;
@@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ void ext2fs_unmark_block_bitmap_range2(ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap,
return;

if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
- if ((block+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
+ if ((block+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
ext2fs_warn_bitmap2((ext2fs_generic_bitmap) bmap,
EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
return;
--
1.7.4.1

2011-09-15 06:54:14

by Amir G.

Subject: Re: [PATCH] libext2fs: fix the range validation in bitmap_range2 funcs

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Amir Goldstein <[email protected]>
>
> The condition ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) in bitmap_ragne2
> and generic_bmap_range funcs in get_bitmap64.c was wrong and
> inconsistent with the condition (start+num-1 > bmap->real_end)
> in generic_bitmap_range funcs in get_bitmap.c.
>
> I got the following error from tune2fs on a 16TB fs:
> Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_unmark_block_bitmap #4294967295
> for block bitmap for 16TB.img
> tune2fs: Invalid argument while reading bitmaps
>
> Fix to condition to ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL), because
> the bit (start+num) is not going to be changed by the funcs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <[email protected]>

ping

> ---
> ?lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c | ? 10 +++++-----
> ?1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c b/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c
> index df095ac..69c399a 100644
> --- a/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c
> +++ b/lib/ext2fs/gen_bitmap64.c
> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_set_generic_bmap_range(ext2fs_generic_bitmap bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return EINVAL;
>
> ? ? ? ?if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ext2fs_warn_bitmap2(bmap, EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0xffffffff);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return EINVAL;
> @@ -405,7 +405,7 @@ errcode_t ext2fs_get_generic_bmap_range(ext2fs_generic_bitmap bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return EINVAL;
>
> ? ? ? ?if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ext2fs_warn_bitmap2(bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return EINVAL;
> @@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ int ext2fs_test_block_bitmap_range2(ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? bmap, block);
>
> ? ? ? ?if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((block+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((block+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ext2fs_warn_bitmap2((ext2fs_generic_bitmap) bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return EINVAL;
> @@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ void ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap_range2(ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return;
>
> ? ? ? ?if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((block+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((block+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ext2fs_warn_bitmap2((ext2fs_generic_bitmap) bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return;
> @@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ void ext2fs_unmark_block_bitmap_range2(ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return;
>
> ? ? ? ?if (EXT2FS_IS_32_BITMAP(bmap)) {
> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((block+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if ((block+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL) {
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ext2fs_warn_bitmap2((ext2fs_generic_bitmap) bmap,
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?EXT2FS_UNMARK_ERROR, 0xffffffff);
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return;
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
>

2011-09-16 02:24:01

by Theodore Ts'o

Subject: Re: [PATCH] libext2fs: fix the range validation in bitmap_range2 funcs

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 06:16:32PM +0300, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Amir Goldstein <[email protected]>
>
> The condition ((start+num) & ~0xffffffffULL) in bitmap_ragne2
> and generic_bmap_range funcs in get_bitmap64.c was wrong and
> inconsistent with the condition (start+num-1 > bmap->real_end)
> in generic_bitmap_range funcs in get_bitmap.c.
>
> I got the following error from tune2fs on a 16TB fs:
> Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_unmark_block_bitmap #4294967295
> for block bitmap for 16TB.img
> tune2fs: Invalid argument while reading bitmaps
>
> Fix to condition to ((start+num-1) & ~0xffffffffULL), because
> the bit (start+num) is not going to be changed by the funcs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amir Goldstein <[email protected]>

Applied, thanks.

- Ted