From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
The caller of send_utimes() is supposed to be sure that the inode number
it passes to this function does actually exists in the send snapshot.
However due to logic/algorithm bugs (such as the one fixed by the patch
titled "Btrfs: send, fix invalid leaf accesses due to incorrect utimes
operations"), this might not be the case and when that happens it makes
send_utimes() access use an unrelated leaf item as the target inode item
or access beyond a leaf's boundaries (when the leaf is full and
path->slots[0] matches the number of items in the leaf).
So if the call to btrfs_search_slot() done by send_utimes() does not find
the inode item, just make sure send_utimes() returns -ENOENT and does not
silently accesses unrelated leaf items or does invalid leaf accesses, also
allowing us to easialy and deterministically catch such algorithmic/logic
bugs.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/send.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
index 8b65396..2db8dc8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
@@ -2502,6 +2502,8 @@ verbose_printk("btrfs: send_utimes %llu\n", ino);
key.type = BTRFS_INODE_ITEM_KEY;
key.offset = 0;
ret = btrfs_search_slot(NULL, sctx->send_root, &key, path, 0, 0);
+ if (ret > 0)
+ ret = -ENOENT;
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
--
2.7.0.rc3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
