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;
Date:   Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:09:54 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext2fs: Fix off-by-one in dx_grow_tree()
Message-ID: <20200410150954.GB1443@quack2.suse.cz>
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>
 <20200410043321.GM45598@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200410043321.GM45598@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 10-04-20 00:33:21, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> 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 <tytso@mit.edu>
> 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 <tytso@mit.edu>

Cool, thanks! Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

								Honza

> 
> 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;
>  
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR