lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5122FA60.4040004@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:06:56 +0800 From: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com> To: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com> CC: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, andi@...stfloor.org, Wuqixuan <wuqixuan@...wei.com>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] vfs: always protect diretory file->fpos with inode mutex On tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:22:40 +0800, Li Zefan wrote: > There's a long long-standing bug...As long as I don't know when it dates > from. > > I've written and attached a simple program to reproduce this bug, and it can > immediately trigger the bug in my box. It uses two threads, one keeps calling > read(), and the other calling readdir(), both on the same directory fd. > > When I ran it on ext3 (can be replaced with ext2/ext4) which has _dir_index_ > feature disabled, I got this: > > EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=993, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 > EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=1009, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 > EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=993, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 > EXT3-fs error (device loop1): ext3_readdir: bad entry in directory #34817: rec_len is smaller than minimal - offset=1009, inode=0, rec_len=0, name_len=0 > ... > > If we configured errors=remount-ro, the filesystem will become read-only. > > SYSCALL_DEFINE3(read, unsigned int, fd, char __user *, buf, size_t, count) > { > ... > loff_t pos = file_pos_read(file); > ret = vfs_read(file, buf, count, &pos); > file_pos_write(file, pos); > fput_light(file, fput_needed); > ... > } > > While readdir() is protected with i_mutex, f_pos can be changed without any locking > in various read()/write() syscalls, which leads to this bug. > > What makes things worse is Andi removed i_mutex from generic_file_llseek, so you > can trigger the same bug by replacing read() with lseek() in the test program. > > commit ef3d0fd27e90f67e35da516dafc1482c82939a60 > Author: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> > Date: Thu Sep 15 16:06:48 2011 -0700 > > vfs: do (nearly) lockless generic_file_llseek > > I've tested ext3 with dir_index enabled and btrfs, nothing bad happened, but there > should be some other vulnerabilities. For example, running the test program on /sys > for a few minutes triggered this warning: > > [ 917.994600] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 917.994614] WARNING: at fs/sysfs/sysfs.h:195 sysfs_readdir+0x24c/0x260() > [ 917.994621] Hardware name: Tecal RH2285 > ... > [ 917.994725] Pid: 8754, comm: a.out Not tainted 3.8.0-rc2-tj-0.7-default+ #69 > [ 917.994731] Call Trace: > [ 917.994736] [<ffffffff81205c6c>] ? sysfs_readdir+0x24c/0x260 > [ 917.994743] [<ffffffff81205c6c>] ? sysfs_readdir+0x24c/0x260 > [ 917.994752] [<ffffffff81041fff>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0 > [ 917.994759] [<ffffffff8104205a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 > [ 917.994766] [<ffffffff81205c6c>] sysfs_readdir+0x24c/0x260 > [ 917.994774] [<ffffffff8119cbd0>] ? sys_ioctl+0x90/0x90 > [ 917.994780] [<ffffffff8119cbd0>] ? sys_ioctl+0x90/0x90 > [ 917.994787] [<ffffffff8119cfc1>] vfs_readdir+0xb1/0xd0 > [ 917.994794] [<ffffffff8119d07b>] sys_getdents64+0x9b/0x110 > [ 917.994803] [<ffffffff814a45d9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > [ 917.994809] ---[ end trace 6efe15a65b89022a ]--- > [ 917.994816] ida_remove called for id=13073 which is not allocated. > > > We can fix this bug in each filesystem, but can't we just make sure i_mutex is > acquired in lseek(), read(), write() and readdir() for directory file operations? I think it is unnecessary to acquire i_mutex in lseek(), read() and write(), because we can be aware of the change of f_pos, and then get and tune the value in readdir(), just like ext3 with dir_index enabled. Thanks Miao -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists