Received: by 2002:a25:6193:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id v141csp221564ybb; Thu, 9 Apr 2020 21:36:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLVHv9Ke7R7LLCyS1L7GVU5zb71hXePxYM63clOUsy4kCm2qNYwiK8+pLd283JeZDRFwJqs X-Received: by 2002:ad4:42d1:: with SMTP id f17mr3484783qvr.93.1586493380407; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 21:36:20 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1586493380; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=l0jrazaH1OPq6VorLREarv13PJBArrW/UgdB+/7uztftMR4df1e/9g+3b//DTjRQ+X XPuhRUzlk+1VFMFUftb49BCJOP1cOxPCI/KvKdQqId5UQkWbeq0eRIO0EHpJrqgvpCqU qcQnihQ1xBG4JK6HH9SBcpfTEs4nTqzGixR2k0jGWCiwknjAdefSN0W42zWt85zuLFe5 J60PO8huFK4Sn5bkVfKrVfyXohWqPavKjoSMYXBC66MlSvQQzmL09nG2bkuCdizjzY6t 5Wz/P29L4gspg6OQl2V8QGcWA4yQxyEZf9uUG1aZ3lhp82aPCx9cH5rMeeEc9wSoegwF UU3Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=8lQZYOCQM7xV6xbff8yTbQJeb5uivQF3gvpC5x+tUOo=; b=U5tKnEPI6B8z2PyfNx4xvsfGLJfu1MxKP6cp5UT8L6OUCpWODZNQKs/B8DU5zwetR2 WpnhiNY22w9dWYHZM1R2d18XF6xE5zrOZ1egR9wZ+c/h9yegyHSfuvQ21jvQV9clAD0j iv+MptL6Bw7WiRGyJIPsc0d50Rhgxl7ek4xbKjxv1a1uUpBhqFR9bdY/eOJBdNuBeFBV VTcQ0NOZWs+txd9QJRwYWAd4cQImh6aFX50sYxHmRGpOOnJwxYB/Zgf+bhsYPLejAVpS IRJpNdAa8VYvS/vzPOd+37WzXZWCmb57q5NWaQRDdKq8EepjnmWom/Z4H4OdTjO7aXUw Ld3Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id n196si762087qkn.99.2020.04.09.21.36.05; Thu, 09 Apr 2020 21:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726651AbgDJEd2 (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:33:28 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:34677 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725844AbgDJEd2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:33:28 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org (pool-72-93-95-157.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [72.93.95.157]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 03A4XLVH013579 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:33:22 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 6F0BB42013D; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:33:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 00:33:21 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Jan Kara Cc: Lukas Czerner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext2fs: Fix off-by-one in dx_grow_tree() Message-ID: <20200410043321.GM45598@mit.edu> References: <20200330090932.29445-1-jack@suse.cz> <20200330090932.29445-3-jack@suse.cz> <20200330132712.ckevhpof4vrsx5rw@work> <20200330145531.GF26544@quack2.suse.cz> <20200331113303.huhzo3jxdnhoupwv@work> <20200331143035.GB13528@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200331143035.GB13528@quack2.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:30:35PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Don't we have basically the same off-by-one in > > > > e2fsck/pass1.c handle_htree() ? > > > > > > > > if ((root->indirect_levels > ext2_dir_htree_level(fs)) && > > > > fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_HTREE_DEPTH, pctx)) > > > > > > > root->indirect_levels is zero based, while ext2_dir_htree_level() > > returns the maximum number of levels (that is 3 by default). If I am > > right then indirect_levels must always be smaller then > > ext2_dir_htree_level() and that is how we use it everywhere else - the > > palce I am pointing out is an exception and I think it's a bug. > > > > Indeed it looks like the bug got introduced in > > 3f0cf647539970474be8f607017ca7eccfc2fbbe > > > > - if ((root->indirect_levels > 1) && > > + if ((root->indirect_levels > ext2_dir_htree_level(fs)) && > > > > Or am I missing something ? > > Ah, you're indeed right! e2fsck/pass2.c even has a correct version of the > condition. Just the condition in pass1.c is wrong. I've applied the following fix on the maint branch. - Ted commit 759b387775bfd5c9d3692680e5e4b929c3848d51 Author: Theodore Ts'o Date: Fri Apr 10 00:30:52 2020 -0400 e2fsck: fix off-by-one check when validating depth of an htree Fixes: 3f0cf6475399 ("e2fsprogs: add support for 3-level htree") Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o diff --git a/e2fsck/pass1.c b/e2fsck/pass1.c index c9e8bf82..38afda48 100644 --- a/e2fsck/pass1.c +++ b/e2fsck/pass1.c @@ -2685,7 +2685,7 @@ static int handle_htree(e2fsck_t ctx, struct problem_context *pctx, return 1; pctx->num = root->indirect_levels; - if ((root->indirect_levels > ext2_dir_htree_level(fs)) && + if ((root->indirect_levels >= ext2_dir_htree_level(fs)) && fix_problem(ctx, PR_1_HTREE_DEPTH, pctx)) return 1;