Bug 460421 - kernel: ext2 does not force ro-mode when revision level is too high [rhel-5.3]
Summary: kernel: ext2 does not force ro-mode when revision level is too high [rhel-5.3]
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: kernel
Version: 5.3
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Eric Sandeen
QA Contact: Red Hat Kernel QE team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks: 460422
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-08-28 07:26 UTC by Eugene Teo (Security Response)
Modified: 2010-04-01 19:57 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2010-04-01 19:57:15 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2008-08-28 07:26:41 UTC
Description of problem:
The ext2 filesystem does not force read-only mode when the revision level is too high. That is, when le32_to_cpu(es->s_rev_level) > EXT3_MAX_SUPP_REV.

Comment 2 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2008-08-28 07:31:59 UTC
 738 static int ext2_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
 739 {
[...]
1066     ext2_setup_super (sb, es, sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY);
1067     return 0;

 576 static int ext2_setup_super (struct super_block * sb,
 577                   struct ext2_super_block * es,
 578                   int read_only)
 579 {
 580     int res = 0;
 581     struct ext2_sb_info *sbi = EXT2_SB(sb);
 582      
 583     if (le32_to_cpu(es->s_rev_level) > EXT2_MAX_SUPP_REV) {
 584         printk ("EXT2-fs warning: revision level too high, "
 585             "forcing read-only mode\n");
 586         res = MS_RDONLY;
 587     }
[...]
 618     return res;
 619 }

It doesn't look like this piece of code is tested at all. The status returned from ext2_setup_super is not checked at all, so what it did was to print a warning message. I believe this should be done in the early part of ext2_fill_super().

Comment 10 RHEL Product and Program Management 2009-02-16 15:34:22 UTC
Updating PM score.

Comment 12 Eric Sandeen 2010-04-01 19:57:15 UTC
I don't think this is a critical fix for RHEL at this point.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.