| Message ID | 20171210011403.14452-1-wqu@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/disk-io.c b/disk-io.c index f5edc4796619..7f13f05ac600 100644 --- a/disk-io.c +++ b/disk-io.c @@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ struct extent_buffer* read_tree_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 bytenr, * Such unaligned tree block will free overlapping extent buffer, * causing use-after-free bugs for fuzzed images. */ - if (bytenr < sectorsize || !IS_ALIGNED(bytenr, sectorsize)) { + if (!IS_ALIGNED(bytenr, sectorsize)) { error("tree block bytenr %llu is not aligned to sectorsize %u", bytenr, sectorsize); return ERR_PTR(-EIO);
Some btrfs created by old mkfs.btrfs can have tree block with 0 bytenr. In fact, any aligned bytenr is allowed in btrfs, and in some case it can cause problem if the valid tree block at 0 bytenr can't be read. Currently, the superblock checker and bytenr alignment checker can already handle the case so there is no need to check bytenr < sectorsize in read_tree_block(). Reported-by: Benjamin Beichler <hadrian2002@googlemail.com> Fixes: 6cca2ea9bea9 ("btrfs-progs: more sanity checks in read_tree_block_fs_info") Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com> --- disk-io.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)