在 2017年07月12日 14:42, Nikolay Borisov 写道:
The current code was erroneously checking for root_level > BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL. If
we had a root_level of 8 then the check won't trigger and we could
potentially hit a buffer overflow. The correct check should be
root_level >= BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL
Thanks for catching this.
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@xxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
index 4ce351efe281..3b787915ef31 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
@@ -1603,7 +1603,7 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_trace_subtree(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
struct extent_buffer *eb = root_eb;
struct btrfs_path *path = NULL;
- BUG_ON(root_level < 0 || root_level > BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL);
+ BUG_ON(root_level < 0 || root_level >= BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL);
BUG_ON(root_eb == NULL);
if (!test_bit(BTRFS_FS_QUOTA_ENABLED, &fs_info->flags))
@@ -2959,7 +2959,7 @@ static int __btrfs_qgroup_release_data(struct inode *inode,
if (free && reserved)
return qgroup_free_reserved_data(inode, reserved, start, len);
extent_changeset_init(&changeset);
- ret = clear_record_extent_bits(&BTRFS_I(inode)->io_tree, start,
+ ret = clear_record_extent_bits(&BTRFS_I(inode)->io_tree, start,
start + len -1, EXTENT_QGROUP_RESERVED, &changeset);
I didn't recongize it's a tailing white space at first.
Nice catch.
Thanks,
Qu
if (ret < 0)
goto out;
--
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
