From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753445Ab0KYOLZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:11:25 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2236 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752328Ab0KYOLY (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Nov 2010 09:11:24 -0500 From: Lukas Czerner To: tytso@mit.edu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sandeen@redhat.com, lczerner@redhat.com Subject: [PATCH] ext4: fix possible overflow in ext4_trim_fs() Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:11:17 +0100 Message-Id: <1290694277-29462-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org When determining last group through ext4_get_group_no_and_offset() the result may be wrong in cases when range->start and range-len are too big, because it may overflow when summing up those two numbers. Fix that by checking range->len and limit its value to ext4_blocks_count(). This commit was tested by myself with expected result. Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner --- fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 4 ++++ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c index 5b4d4e3..7b05d92 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c @@ -4819,6 +4819,7 @@ int ext4_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct fstrim_range *range) ext4_group_t group, ngroups = ext4_get_groups_count(sb); ext4_grpblk_t cnt = 0, first_block, last_block; uint64_t start, len, minlen, trimmed; + ext4_fsblk_t blocks_count = ext4_blocks_count(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_es); int ret = 0; start = range->start >> sb->s_blocksize_bits; @@ -4826,6 +4827,9 @@ int ext4_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct fstrim_range *range) minlen = range->minlen >> sb->s_blocksize_bits; trimmed = 0; + if (len > blocks_count) + len = blocks_count - start; + if (unlikely(minlen > EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(sb))) return -EINVAL; -- 1.7.2.3