Bug 460422
| Summary: | kernel: ext2 does not force ro-mode when revision level is too high [rhel-4.8] | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Eugene Teo (Security Response) <eteo> |
| Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Eric Sandeen <esandeen> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Martin Jenner <mjenner> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | 4.8 | CC: | esandeen, lwang, security-response-team, vgoyal |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-04-01 19:57:36 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 460421 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 461304 | ||
|
Description
Eugene Teo (Security Response)
2008-08-28 07:41:12 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, so what it did was to print a warning message. I believe this should be done in the early part of ext2_fill_super().
Updating PM score. Since RHEL 4.8 External Beta has begun, and this bugzilla remains unresolved, it has been rejected as it is not proposed as exception or blocker. I don't think this is a critical fix for RHEL at this point. |