On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 03:11:27 +0100 Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> As found in <http://bugs.debian.org/550010>, hfsplus is using type u32 > rather than sector_t for some sector number calculations. > > In particular, hfsplus_get_block() does: > > u32 ablock, dblock, mask; > ... > map_bh(bh_result, sb, (dblock << HFSPLUS_SB(sb).fs_shift) + > HFSPLUS_SB(sb).blockoffset + (iblock & mask)); > > I am not confident that I can find and fix all cases where a sector > number may be truncated. For now, avoid data loss by refusing to mount > HFS+ volumes with more than 2^32 sectors (2TB). > > Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> > Cc: sta...@kernel.org > --- > --- a/fs/hfsplus/wrapper.c > +++ b/fs/hfsplus/wrapper.c > @@ -99,6 +99,10 @@ > > if (hfsplus_get_last_session(sb, &part_start, &part_size)) > return -EINVAL; > + if (part_start + part_size > 0x100000000) { > + pr_err("hfs: volumes larger than 2TB are not supported yet\n"); > + return -EINVAL; > + } part_start and part_size are sector_t. This code will do weird overflow things when sector_t is 32-bit. Also 32-bit compilers will get upset at the excessively large hex constant. This should fix both issues: --- a/fs/hfsplus/wrapper.c~hfsplus-refuse-to-mount-volumes-larger-than-2tb-fix +++ a/fs/hfsplus/wrapper.c @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ int hfsplus_read_wrapper(struct super_bl if (hfsplus_get_last_session(sb, &part_start, &part_size)) return -EINVAL; - if (part_start + part_size > 0x100000000) { + if ((u64)part_start + part_size > 0x100000000ULL) { pr_err("hfs: volumes larger than 2TB are not supported yet\n"); return -EINVAL; } _ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
